Benefits of Risk Based Inspection to the Oil and Gas Industry

Paper presented at the RBI Conference, Presented in Perth, Australia 27-28 April 2000

Jens P. Tronskar Det Norske Veritas Singapore

Lynne C. Kaley Det Norske Veritas, Houston, Texas USA

ABSTRACT
RISK BASED INSPECTION (RBI) is a methodology which prioritises inspection activities on the basis of risk. RBI uses the results of quantified risk and production availability analyses to assess the potential failure consequences. It combines material technology with load and resistance models to determine the probability of failure. A quantified ranking of process equipment, piping and transmission pipelines in terms of personnel and environmental risk, loss of production and damage cost, focuses the inspection towards high risk components and potential/active failure damage mechanisms for an optimal utilisation of inspection resources on key assets. Case studies for downstream and upstream applications are discussed.

1 INTRODUCTION
The oil and gas industry, which operates offshore installations and topside processing facilities, pipelines, petrochemical and petroleum refining plants, handles a wide range of flammable and toxic materials which are potentially hazardous. These industries have a good safety record compared to the industry as a whole [1]; however, occaisonal incidents occur emphasizing the inherent hazards involved in the business. As a result, local legislation has been imposed in various parts of the world to define requirements for management of these plants and facilities that require operators to demonstrate that potential hazards have been identified and plans developed for maintaining safe facilities through periodic inspection and mitigation activities. In addition, increasing business pressures require efficient use of company resources while production schedules require high operating equipment efficiency. Risk Based Inspection (RBI) methodology is a systematic approach which prioritises inspection activities on the basis of risk. The fundamentals of Risk Based Inspection apply universally to all types of oil and gas processing and petrochemical processes, either onshore or offshore installations, as well as to other industries. There are, however, some differences in the application of these basic fundamentals depending on the specifics of the process and the type of installation. Leaks of flammable/hazardous material in a plant originate from a variety of causes, and material related damage is only one of these causes. Important causes for leaks can be operator errors (simply opening live process equipment), incorrect operation, improper job training, lack of procedures for maintenance, bad weather conditions, etc. Inspection cannot prevent leaks associated with these causes; what is required in such cases is
Page 1 of 18

Benefits of Risk Based Inspection for the Offshore and Onshore Oil & Gas Industry

DET NORSKE VERITAS

management actions of different kind. Loss Control Management (LCM), inspection management and RBI can be seen as a part of this effort and all are part of Risk Management. Inspection management is an ongoing activity within a plant and a number of resources and different disciplines are involved. Figure 1 illustrates the different steps within inspection management. RBI is a tool for identifying active/potential damage mechanisms, for risk ranking and finally for inspection planning and risk reduction, i.e. inspection and monitoring for the high risk items and corrective actions for the lower risk items.

2 ACTIVITIES
A typical Risk Based Inspection (RBI) programme contains the following activities: Screen operating units within a process system or plant; identify high risk equipment or piping items Calculate the probability of failure taking into account ongoing degradation Calculate consequence of failure; effect of release of process fluid, business loss due to failure, repair costs. Calculate the risk value associated with the operation of each equipment item as the product of the probability of failure and the consequence of failure Prioritise the equipment based on calculated risk Design risk reduction programmes to lower total risk; by inspection, monitoring, repair, mitigation and replacement/re-design Calculate Risk Reduction and Cost Optimization of activities for budget allocation of resources and planning Systematic management of operating risk to avoid unexpected equipment failures and production losses over time The approach and methodology demonstrated here was developed by the API Committee on Refinery Equipment and is outlined in the API Base Resource Document on Risk Based Inspection (API Publication 581). The methodology was developed as a part of a Joint Industry sponsored project between 23 major oil and gas industry companies and DNV.

3 METHODOLOGY
Analysing all equipment items in a plant can be a time-consuming effort; thus methods should be used to minimise the work and to focus on the high risk items. A qualitative plant system risk screening is an efficient tool for RBI analysis. The systems screening approach allows documented screening out of low risk systems with little or no safety or production impact that are candidates for a corrective maintenance program. The systems screened in are analysed quantitatively. In this way, data analysis time is focused on the equipment with the most impact on risk and production.

Page 2 of 18

Benefits of Risk Based Inspection for the Offshore and Onshore Oil & Gas Industry

DET NORSKE VERITAS

3.1 Qualitative Analysis

The screening process is done in close co-operation with the operating company and should involve experienced personnel from the plant (inspection, operation and materials) in addition to personnel with RBI assessment experience. This may be organised in structured working sessions. Typically these analyses can be completed in a week or less time. The Probability and Consequence Categories are evaluated separately and subsequently combined in a risk matrix to produce a risk ranking for the unit. The Probability Category is assigned by evaluating and combining the primary factors affecting the probability of failure (small, large or catastrophic failure) listed below: 1. Number of equipment items 2. In-service damage mechanism potential 3. Appropriateness of inspection methods used (inspection effectiveness) 4. Current equipment condition, inspection history and findings 5. Process and Operating conditions 6. Equipment design basis The damage Consequence Category is determined from a combination of six elements or sub-factors that determine the fire and / or explosion hazards: 1. Ignition probability 2. Quantity that can be released 3. Ability to flash to a vapour 4. Possibility of escalation from minor to serious conditions, location of equipment 5. Engineered safeguards in place 6. Degree of exposure to damage 7. Damage effect on production loss, redundancy and repair. The results are combined and plotted on a simplified risk matrix shown in Figure 2 to locate areas of potential concern and determine process unit areas in need of the most inspection attention or other measures of risk reduction. This approach shows at a glance the number of equipment items that are high or low risk, as well as whether the risk is dominated by probability of failure (a good candidate for inspection) or consequence of failure (a good candidate for mitigation), or both. Likewise components with low risk are identified and assigned a corrective maintenance strategy.

3.2 Quantitative Analysis

The quantitative RBI approach begins with the extraction of process, equipment and other information from the plant management database. Then each equipment item within the area of interest is evaluated with regard to probability of failure and consequence of failure. The consequence and probability for each scenario are combined to obtain the risk. Based on the risk prioritisation the inspection efforts are focused, aiming at opportunities to reduce overall risk and cost. Similar plant expertise is involved as for the qualitative analysis, most importantly in identification of damage mechanisms and susceptibilites, as well as process stream identification for consequence modeling considerations.
Page 3 of 18

Benefits of Risk Based Inspection for the Offshore and Onshore Oil & Gas Industry

DET NORSKE VERITAS

3.2.1 Probability of Failure Analysis The probability of failure analysis uses experienced personnel to identify and evaluate possible material degradation in all covered equipment. This is accomplished by systematically identifying the environment/material interaction, actual design data, operational history, experience with this or similar services, and other aspects driving damage rates. The first step in the probability determination is to use the above information to identify the potential damage mechanisms and damage rates, determine the current condition, and evaluate damage tolerance, failure modes and remaining life, if applicable, for each piece of equipment. Damage Modules are used to evaluate the necessary conditions for failure and calculation of the probability of failure. The actual methodology is used in the software in order to simplify and reduce the time required in the anlysis effort. New mechanisms are being added periodically, as required. The failure mechanisms currently covered by the methodology are: External Corrosion including atmospheric corrosion and cracking and corrosion or cracking under insulation (CUI) or lagging General and localised corrosion in various environments (streams containing water, sea water, CO2, Hydrochloric, Sulphuric, and Hydrofluoric acids, etc.) Stress corrosion cracking in various environments (Caustic, Amine, Chlorides, H2S, etc.) High temperature phenomena (oxidation, hydrogen attack, thermal fatigue, creep, etc.) Brittle Fracture and other Embrittlement mechanisms Fatigue caused by vibration, flow effects (slugging/choking), and ship movements (FPSOs) The calculation method for probability of failure associated with the failure mechanisms is based on Structural Reliability Analysis (SRA) [3], where the stochastic uncertainty in the basic variables, in particular the uncertainty in the determination of the damage rate, are taken into account. An important feature of this theory is its ability to include both the prior damage estimates and the outcome from the inspections in the derivation of the updated posterior probability of failure (Bayes Theorem). For inspection updating, the additional information gained from the inspection is utilised in the determination of the future behaviour of the equipment. The level of information gained from an inspection depends heavily on the quality and extent (coverage) of the inspection performed. The inspection quality is modelled either by discrete probabilities for the inspection effectiveness (i.e. the probability that the inspection method will detect the ongoing damage) or by Probability of Detection (POD) curves [4] for the inspection method applied. The latter defines the probability of detecting existing degradation as a function of the characteristic dimension of the degradation.

Page 4 of 18

Benefits of Risk Based Inspection for the Offshore and Onshore Oil & Gas Industry

DET NORSKE VERITAS

3.2.2 Consequence Analysis For a process plant, the most important consequence elements are the personnel safety and the financial loss due to shut-down or deferred production. The focus on safety is obvious as the process unit may contain large volumes of flammable and/or toxic component. The safety aspects can be addressed using established risk analysis methods (QRAQuantitative Risk Analysis). This type of analysis is often carried out as a part of the design process, and the analysis should ideally be updated on a regular basis during operation to include effects of changes in the operation and modification to the facility. The consequence parts of the QRA analysis can be transferred to RBI analysis in the form of PLL-values (Potential Loss of Life) and asset damage depending on the size of leak and extent of the simulated accident scenario. The QRA methodology facilitates modelling of leakage, dispersion, ignition, fire and explosion, as well as escalation of the initial event to other process segments or for offshore platforms, to the load bearing structure. QRA analyses are comprehensive and can be utilised in the RBI analysis with considerable savings in the overall analysis effort. In the absence of such analysis, simplified consequence assessment can be performed. The RBI methodology is based on an event tree approach, similar to that applied for standard QRAs, with pre-simulated effect-scenarios. The five main consequence categories are: (see Figure 2) Flammable events (fire/explosion) Toxic Releases Environmental Risks (cost of environmental clean-up) Business Interruption (lost/deferred production) Asset repair after failure Cost data related to lost production and asset repair used should be based on actual plant data; otherwise default data from industry experience can be used. 3.2.3 Risk Ranking As we have already stated, risk is a function of probability and consequence of failure. Experience has shown that the use of a risk matrix is an effective tool for communicating risk qualitatively. Both consequence and probability of failure are categorised in 5 groups giving a total of 25 risk combinations. Additionally, a matrix plot as shown in Figure 3 can be used by setting iso-risk lines to identify levels of action required. Each of these methods of communication allows comparison of equipment to prioritise the effort required. Risk can be communicated in terms of personnel safety, economic loss or a combination of both personnel and economic impact. The overall safety requirement(s) can then be converted to an acceptance line in the safety risk matrix and used for inspection/maintenance planning. An example is shown in Figure 4. For components above the acceptance line, actions should be taken to reduce the risk. For components below and for all components with only financial risk, a cost optimisation scheme should be considered.

Page 5 of 18

Benefits of Risk Based Inspection for the Offshore and Onshore Oil & Gas Industry

DET NORSKE VERITAS

4 RISK BASED INSPECTION PLANNING

From the risk based inspection point of view, inspection planning is a matter of gaining enough knowledge about the equipment through inspections to accurately predict the rate of degradation and thereby determine when equipment should be re-inspected, be repaired or be replaced. A unique feature of RBI is the ability to determine the level of inspection and effectiveness appropriate to provide the knowledge required to achieve or maintain the acceptable risk level. The inspection approach is flexible enough to allow multiple inspections with less coverage (less effective) or a single inspection with extensive coverage as well as intrusive methods requiring internal access and surface preparation or non-intrusive techniques allowing effective in-service inspections.

4.1 Risk Reduction through Inspection

The effectiveness of the inspection methods to detect the damage mechanisms is evaluated and characterised based on five inspection effectiveness categories: Highly effective, Usually effective, Fairly effective, Poorly effective and Ineffective. Assignment of categories is based on professional judgement and expert opinion. One of the most important criteria is the capability of the inspection methods to detect the characteristics of the relevant damage mechanisms. The damage mechanisms generally considered are listed in Section 3.2.1.

4.2 Inspection Planning Techniques

Ideally, cost optimisation should be performed for every item of equipment evaluated in the study. The availability of software to automate and facilitate this step is an important cost effective tool. Several simplified techniques for inspection planning may be applied but the following are the most commonly used: Risk Matrix method Remaining Life method Limit on Probability of Failure The simplest method is the Risk Matrix method. For this method the inspection interval is directly dependent on the risk of each equipment item and the location of the equipment item in the risk plot; requiring high-risk items to be given short intervals and low-risk items longer intervals. This method is simple to apply and is commonly used by the industry. The disadvantages with this method are that the damage rate and lifetime are not accounted for explicitly and the effect of past inspections sometimes is not considered in a consistent manner. The Lifetime method is a method where the inspection intervals are set as a function of the estimated lifetime of the component. This function will be related to the component risk and the predictability of the damage rate. The predictability is related to the uncertainty in any damage model applied and/or the effectiveness of the inspections performed of the component. This model is calibrated using more complex calculation algorithms where POD-information is included. Limit on Probability of Failure is a method similar to the methods applied for structural mechanics analysis of structures and pipelines. This model estimates the failure probabilities for individual equipment and updates these estimates based on the outcome from the inspections carried out. The inspection intervals are defined from restrictions on
Page 6 of 18

Benefits of Risk Based Inspection for the Offshore and Onshore Oil & Gas Industry

DET NORSKE VERITAS

the allowable failure probability for the equipment. The limiting allowable failure probability triggering an inspection may be set from consideration of the failure consequences, or by means of any company standards. A cost optimised procedure for defining the limiting failure probability may be applied for critical components.

4.3 Risk Based Inspection Optimisation

The cost optimal level of inspection may be determined based upon cost-benefit analyses identifying which equipment item should get thorough inspection and which should get little or none. If the analysis reveals that high levels of inspection activity are required for some equipment, often the inspections can be paid for by the savings generated by reduced inspection activity on low risk equipment. Inspection optimisation involves focusing the inspection efforts in order to reduce risk of failure and save cost. An essential part of the inspection optimisation is to establish the most cost-effective approach satisfying the failure acceptance or acceptable probability of failure criterion. The key to inspection optimisation is to use the method of inspection updating described in Section 4.1. Inspection plans are most often developed by defining the target risk value for inspection costs, repair costs and expected risk costs. Based on the defined target value, the inspection interval for a specific inspection quality and coverage is determined after the inspection updating analysis in the Limit on Probability of Failure approach described in Section 4.2. Occasionally a more complex determination is used and includes the net present value sum of all the cost terms added to the project over the remaining service life, accounting for maintenance costs, inspection costs, expected repair costs and expected risk costs. It is possible to meet defined risk targets by changing the inspection methods and intervals. It is often necessary to inspect more frequently or use different methods to achieve the desired risk targets in some cases while other equipment requres less frequent inspection but require extensive internal examination. In all cases however, the ultimate goal is to minimise the total costs without compromising safety or production capabilities.

5 SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY
At the highest level, Risk Based Inspection gives management the tools needed to make cost/benefit decisions regarding inspection and related activities. The key to turning Risk Based Inspection into Risk Based Management is via economic evaluation modules that evaluate relevant costs such as equipment repair and replacement, business interruption, and cost of injuries to personnel. The quantitative approach for Risk Based Prioritisation described in this paper can be illustrated schematically as shown in Figure 5. One essential feature of the approach is that it includes the option for Fitness-For-Service assessment should the inspection findings not be acceptable based on code requirements. The Fitness-For-Service (FFS) option is included to assess the criticality of inspection findings, employing less conservative and more detailed assessment procedures than the generally conservative acceptance criteria of the design, inspection, repair, maintenance and alteration codes. FFS methodology is also applied to estimate remaining lives of equipment items less conservatively than that based on the methods specified in the codes.

Page 7 of 18

Benefits of Risk Based Inspection for the Offshore and Onshore Oil & Gas Industry

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Application of FFS contributes to further cost savings as expensive repair can be avoided or the useful life of the plant can be extended whilst maintaining risk at an acceptable level.

6 CASE STUDIES
6.1 CASE STUDY 1
The RBI study was performed on a Coker Unit to determine which equipment would require inspection over the next four years based on an established risk criteria. The study was performed in advance of a scheduled fall shutdown to evaluate the equipment needs for inspection to safely operate for the next four year run and evaluate the impact of that inspection plan on cost and risk. The equipment covered in the study is illustrated in Table 1. The objectives of the study were to create flexible, credible inspection plan guidelines to: Reduce plant operating risk Optimize inspection/maintenance dollars per activity. Demonstrate cost benefit of RBI to the plant management. Create useful equipment inspection plans. 6.1.1 Results The current risk of the unit was compared to the risk after the targetted four year run. Risk in 2002 is shown in Figure 6 assuming no inspection was performed and compared to the unit risk in 2002, assuming the recommended inspection plan is implemented. Risk is shown in terms of Financial Risk. Financial Risk includes the likelihood of failure, consequence of failure, and production loss. The reliability of the unit was calculated in terms of mean-time-between-failure (MTBF) and was improved 16-fold. These risk reductions and improved reliability were achieved by redirecting the inspection dollars to the high risk equipment. As a result, 43 pieces of equipment were removed from the work list and 13 were added. The overall maintenance and inspection budget savings was $225,000 showing a project Cost Benefit of $175,000, as shown in Table 2. The thirteen equipment items added to the work list represented unacceptable risk due to active damage mechanisms not previously identified. The equipment was analyzed using the identified H2S levels, presence of water, pH and fabrication practices. Inspection revealed one drum with significant wet H2S damage that had gone undetected.

6.2 Case Study 2

In general, refineries have increased the corrosivity of crude slates in recent years. In the continuing drive to improve profitability, one refinery requested an evaluation to measure the impact of increasing sulfur and naphthenic acid crude content on the equipment life and inspection requirements and costs of a sweet crude facility. The refinery typically runs a 0.1% sulfur crude with naphthenic acid of 0.15 TAN and has experienced few corrosion related problems in the last 30 years of operation. A study was initiated to evaluate the impact of increasing crude sulfur and naphthenic acid composition. The objectives of this case study were to:

Page 8 of 18

Benefits of Risk Based Inspection for the Offshore and Onshore Oil & Gas Industry

DET NORSKE VERITAS

1. Identify equipment that would experience significantly increased corrosion as a result of the crude slate changes; 2. Quantify the impact of the test crude slates on unit risk compared to the current operation; 3. Quantify the potential inspection and maintenance cost increases when compared to the current inspection program; and 4. Provide guidelines and recommendations to manage equipment risk in the future. 6.2.1 Results Current risk of the crude unit was evaluated to provide the baseline equipment condition. A 5 X 5-risk matrix of the equipment showing current risk is shown in Figure 7. Three different crude corrosivities were modeled and risk evaluated for a ten year plan period to determine the impact of the feed changes on risk and maintenance and inspection costs. The risk category distribution for equipment in the study by crude content is shown in Table 3. The impact of processing different corrosivity crude through the crude unit was analyzed on the basis of associated financial risk for each feed. As shown in Figure 8, the financial risk of processing 0.5% sulfur and 0.28 TAN would be 19% higher than that for processing a 0.1% sulfur crude feed for the same 10 year operating period. At the end of the 10 year plan period, the financial risk of processing 0.8% sulfur and 0.67 TAN crude would be 77% higher than the financial risk of processing a 0.1% sulfur crude. If risk is held constant, the cost of inspection can be determined for each case. The cost of inspection between 0.1% and 0.5% crudes did not change. However, the difference in cost of inspection for the 0.8% sulfur crude modeled was significant. The model indicated that for the ten year plan period, the cost of inspection for processing the 0.8% sulfur, 0.26 TAN feed would increase 63% over the 0.1% and 0.5% crude, as shown in Figure 9. Processing the 0.8% sulfur, 0.67 TAN feed significantly increases the inspection costs for the plan period. If an increase in inspection is not considered, the total unit risk and financial risk exposure of the unit will increase by over 50%. Investigating the results shows that the 50% items affected by sulfidation would have a higher failure frequency as a result of the increased sulfur content. This increase in the number of failures increases the Financial Risk Exposure of the unit. If the higher sulfur crude were to be processed as a permanent operational change, replacement of the higher likelihood items would require a material upgrade rather than increased inspection.

6.3 Case Study 3

RBI analyses were performed on the topsides on the North Sea offshore platforms. The platforms produce a total of 14.6 bill scm gas/year and 6 mill tonnes of NGL/year. The scope of work and purpose of the RBI analyses conducted included: Performing risk ranking of all topside piping at the field comprising 8294 pipe tags Using existing QRA analysis (done by DNV previously using the OHRAT software) Using existing RAM results Estimating probability of failure per tag (due to internal and external damage) Estimating risk per tag Indicating most likely types of damage
Page 9 of 18

Benefits of Risk Based Inspection for the Offshore and Onshore Oil & Gas Industry

DET NORSKE VERITAS

6.3.1 Most of the piping was fabricated in CRA (corrosion resistant alloys 6Mo and duplex). The results of the analyses of all the 8294 pipe tags on the Sleipner A platform have been summarised in the diagram shown in Figure10. It is seen that only a small percentage (0.1%) of the equipment items fall in the category VH (very high risk). Further, only relatively few items fall under the categories high (H) and medium (M) risk, i.e., 0.7% and 1.9% respectively. An important observation is that 57.5% of the piping items fall under the low (L) risk category and 39.8% under the very low (VL) risk category. The risk matrix containing the number of piping items in each risk category from the Sleipner A topside analysis is shown in Table 4. Based on the results of the analyses, Statoil concluded that they could reduce the current inspection activities by 25%. Based on their positive experience with RBI, Statoil decided to implement the methodology for inspection planning of all their offshore installations within three years and onshore plants (refineries) within five years [6].

6.4 Case Study 4

An RBI analyses was performed on a number of pipelines in the North Sea. A typical project involved analysis of a 13 km long, 12 seamless API 5L Grade X52 offshore subsea pipeline. The multiphase pipeline, carrying produced gas, oil and water, had been installed at 70 meters water depth in 1990, with a specified design life of 15 years. The pipeline was commissioned in September 1990 and the first intelligent pig inspection (British Gas Pig) was performed in March 1993. Extensive internal corrosion was observed during this inspection, and a corrosion inhibitor program was initiated immediately. The pipeline was re-inspected in 1994 and 1996 with significantly improved sizing accuracy of the inspection tool. Based on the outcome of the last two inspections there were indications that corrosion was still taking place, in spite of the ongoing inhibitor program. Inspection plan recommendations were made for the pipeline depending on the detection and sizing accuracy of the intelligent pigs being applied. DNV conducted this study based on an assessment of the present condition of the pipeline and the predicted future corrosion rate, defined from the previously conducted pigging inspections in 93, 94 and 96. 6.4.1 Results The relevant failure modes considered were leakage due to through-thickness pitting corrosion and burst of the pipeline associated with grooving corrosion. The limit on probability of failure approach for determining the inspection intervals was applied. As burst of the pipeline typically will result in a more severe failure scenario than leakage, two different limiting annual failure probabilities triggering a new inspection were considered for these failure scenarios; for leakage 10-3 and for burst 10-4. In Figure 11 the predicted future annual failure probabilities for leakage and burst failure caused by internal corrosion are shown, where the uncertainties associated with the ability of the pigging inspections to accurately assess the condition of the pipeline are accounted for. It is observed that a new pigging inspection of the pipeline should be carried out
Page 10 of 18

Benefits of Risk Based Inspection for the Offshore and Onshore Oil & Gas Industry

DET NORSKE VERITAS

within three years of last inspection (1999). Given that this inspection does not reveal any unexpected increase in the level of degradation, no further inspections of the pipeline would be required over the remaining service life, as shown by the updated annual failure probabilities in Figure 11. It was found that the pipeline, in spite of the significant level of corrosion initially observed, might be operated safely throughout its intended design life with a defined risk controlled inspection plan. Another more expensive alternative to the use of RBI planning would for this case be to introduce a periodic inspection/monitoring program of the pipeline with possible early abandonment.

7 CONCLUSIONS
Risk Based Inspection gives management the tools needed to make cost/benefit decisions regarding inspection and related maintenance activities; hence RBI is a subset of Risk Based Management, using risk as the criterion for action or inaction for any activity affecting safety or reliability of equipment. Risk is a good criterion for prioritising inspection efforts because : Highest priority items are easily identified as the highest risk items Risk can be measured as economic loss (or gain from reduction of risk) Activities can be justified on a cost/benefit basis DNVs experience shows that application of RBI methodology can lead to substantial cost savings for the oil and gas industry in terms of reduced time required for turnaround inspection, deferral of inspection and by specification of optimised on-line inspection to replace intrusive inspection. However, the cost optimisation should not only be focused on reduction in the direct inspection costs but on an overall risk cost reduction. This may in some cases lead to higher inspection costs.

Page 11 of 18

Benefits of Risk Based Inspection for the Offshore and Onshore Oil & Gas Industry

DET NORSKE VERITAS

8 REFERENCES
[1] Robin Pitblado and Robin Turney: Risk Assessment in The Process Industry. Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby Warwickshire, UK 1996 API Committee on Refinery Equipment: Base Resource Document on Risk based Inspection. Prepared by DNV Industry Inc. Houston Texas January 1998. Madsen, H.O., Lind, N.C. and Krenk, S., Methods of Structural Safety, Prentice-Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, N.J. 1986 Frli, Olav: Development and Optimization of NDT for Practical Use-Reliability of Radiography and Ultrasonic Testing. 5th Nordic NDT Symposium, Esbo, Finland 1990, 26-28 August, NORDTEST Cramer, Espen H., Hjelm, Morten H. and Wstberg, Stig: LCC in Design and Maintenance of Deep Water Risers. The 10th Underwater Technology Conference, Bergen, Norway, 1998 Hauge, Jan: Risk Based Inspection (RBI) a modern tool for inspection management of static process equipment. Inspection and Maintenance Strategies for the Offshore Industry, New Orleans September 14-15 1998

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

Page 12 of 18

Benefits of Risk Based Inspection for the Offshore and Onshore Oil & Gas Industry

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Inspection data evaluation Analysis of results

Company goals Performance indicators

Consequence of Failure Safety, Production Loss

Inspection and testing Execution & Reporting

Optimisation & Safety Compliance

Probability of Failure Materials/Environment and Strength Risk Ranking per equipment

Inspection Plan Inspection details, planning, logistics

Inspection Programme Method, Frequency, Coverage,Location, Cost

Figure 1.

Inspection Management

Personnel Safety
Leakage -small -medium -large
Yes

Ignition?
No

Repair Production Loss Toxic release Production Loss

Environment

Repair

Figure 2.

Scenarios for Consequence Calculation

Page 13 of 18

Benefits of Risk Based Inspection for the Offshore and Onshore Oil & Gas Industry

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Figure 3.

Qualitative Risk Matrix

Acceptance Criteria Safety Risk

Likelihood of failure 5 4 3 2 1 A B C D Consequence of Failure VL M L H M

Risk reduction required: - inspection - monitoring - data collection/verification

Economic Risk
Likelihood of failure 5 4 3 2 1 A
E

VH M L VL H M

VH

B C D Consequence of Failure

Cost-benefit analysis

Figure 4.

Quantitative Risk Ranking Matrix

Page 14 of 18

Benefits of Risk Based Inspection for the Offshore and Onshore Oil & Gas Industry

DET NORSKE VERITAS

The methodology and application of RBI

Equipment Database containing the key data Analyse the data Apply Limit State Analysis and Reliability Index methods to calculate the probability of failure. Calculate inventories and Consequences of failure Consequences PoF

Affected Area

Thinning PoF

CUI PoF

Cracking PoF

Item

EQUIPMENT RISK RANKINGS: Damage Consequence PoF Expressed as an affected area Plan actions based on the results ACTION PLANS: PoF for each damage mechanisms

Item risk Cons * PoF

Inspect:

Other:

Inspection
Prioritize items based on Risk and specify inspection methods based on the driving factor i.e. thinning, CUI and the location based on equipment type / service etc. Evaluation of inspection findings. Fitness-For-Service Assesment

Other follow-up:
Prioritize actions based on consequence. This is aimed at items where risk is driven purely by consequence and not by an active damage mechanism. Remedial actions may involve upgrading, design modifications and mitigations

Figure 5.

The Methodology and Application of DNVs RBI Technology.

Page 15 of 18

Benefits of Risk Based Inspection for the Offshore and Onshore Oil & Gas Industry

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Figure 1. Financial Risk in $/year $1,250,000 Financial Risk $/year $1,000,000 $750,000 $500,000 $250,000 $1998 2002 without the 2002 with the 1998 Inspection 1998 Inspection $152,548 $763,332 $1,064,569

Figure 6:

Financial Risk in $/Year

Figure 7:

Current Risk Matrix

Page 16 of 18

Benefits of Risk Based Inspection for the Offshore and Onshore Oil & Gas Industry

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Figure 8. Financial Risk Exposure for 0.1%, 0.5% and 0.8% sulfur feed, for plan period after inspection

$65,000 $55,000 $45,000 $35,000 $25,000 $15,000 0.1% S 0.5% S Sulfur content in the feed 0.8% S $26,421 $34,793 $46,846

Figure 8:

Financial Risk Exposure After Inspection

Cost of Inspection by Sulfur Content

$350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 0.1% Sulfur 0.5% Sulfur % Sulfur in Crude 0.8% Sulfur Cost of Inspection

Figure 9:

Cost of Inspection by Sulphur Content

Page 17 of 18

Benefits of Risk Based Inspection for the Offshore and Onshore Oil & Gas Industry

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Risk ranking for all 8294 pipe tags

VH H 0.1% M 1.9% 0.7% VL 39.8% L 57.5%

VH H M L VL

Figure 10.

Overall distribution of risk among all 8294 pipe tags analysed on the Sleipner A platform. VH: Very high, H: High, M: Medium, L: Low and VL: Very low risk.

Annual Failure Probability for Leakge Present info 1.0E-01 1.0E-02 Failure Probability 1.0E-03 1.0E-04 1.0E-05 1.0E-06 1.0E-07 1.0E-08 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Failure Probability After inspection in 1999 1.0E-01 1.0E-02 1.0E-03 1.0E-04 1.0E-05 1.0E-06 1.0E-07

Annual Failure Probability for Burst Present info After inspection in 1999

1.0E-08 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Ye ar

Figure 11.

Estimated annual failure probabilities for leakage and burst failure of subsea pipeline due to internal corrosion. The updated estimated failure probabilities after 1999 are based on the assumption that no unexpected increase in the level of degradation is observed at this inspection.

Page 18 of 18

Benefits of Risk Based Inspection for the Offshore and Onshore Oil & Gas Industry

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Type of Equipment Drums and Towers Heat Exchangers Piping Segments TOTAL Table 1:

Number of Equipment 66 51 571 688

% of Total 10 7 83 100

Scope of the RBI Study

Dollars Saved by Avoiding Vessel Entry $225,000 Cost of the study Overall Savings

Number of Equipment taken out of Turnaround List due to their low risk levels 30

$50,000

$175,000

Table 2:

Candidates for Avoiding Vessel Entry and Cost Benefits Equipment Count (10 Year Plan)

Risk Ranking High Medium High Medium Low Table 3:

Probability of failure >10-1 10-2 10-1 10-3 10-2 10-4 10-3 <10-4 C-Class Risk Cost (US $)

Current 3 25 337 125

0.1% S; 0.15 TAN 4 51 314 121

0.5% S; 0.28 TAN 7 63 303 117

0.8% S; 0.67 TAN 14 61 298 117

Risk Ranking versus Equipment for Crude Slates

2551 39 62 491 1901 58 A <135 K 1096 5 39 260 792 0 B 135 K -1.35 M 3482 33 61 228 3099 61 C 1.35 M 4.7 M 1145 9 23 74 1039 0 D 4.7 M -13.5 M 20 0 0 0 20 0 E >13.5 M 8294 86 185 1053 6851 119

Table 4.

Consolidated results of RBI analysis of Sleipner A platform topsides [6] with regard to internal and external damage (corrosion). The matrix shows the number of piping items in each risk category.

Page 19 of 18