December MTS Houston Luncheon. Hoover Offshore Oil Pipeline System (HOOPS) GA-A244 Bypass and Wye Inspection

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "December MTS Houston Luncheon. Hoover Offshore Oil Pipeline System (HOOPS) GA-A244 Bypass and Wye Inspection"

Claire King
5 years ago
Views:

1 1

2 December MTS Houston Luncheon Hoover Offshore Oil Pipeline System (HOOPS) GA-A244 Bypass and Wye Inspection

HOOPS Background Quintana Station The Hoover Offshore Oil Pipeline System (HOOPS) is a 153 mile common carrier pipeline system that runs from the Western Gulf of Mexico to Quintana Terminal - south

3 HOOPS Background Quintana Station The Hoover Offshore Oil Pipeline System (HOOPS) is a 153 mile common carrier pipeline system that runs from the Western Gulf of Mexico to Quintana Terminal - south of Freeport, Texas. It transports crude oil from a number of offshore production facilities, including: Shell Perdido, ExxonMobil Hoover-Diana, Anadarko Gunnison, Boomvang and Nansen to Seaway s facilities at Jones Creek and Texas City. HOOPS was installed in 1999; is operated by EM Pipeline Company (EMPCo) and has capacity of 100,000 bpd. GA-A244 The HOOPS system includes: Mid point pumping platform at GA-A244 that was tied in to HOOPS in mile pipeline from Hoover/ Diana Platform upstream of GA-A miles pipeline to Quintana Station downstream of GA-A244 platform 96 mile Alpine Pipeline from Gunnison tied into GA-A mile BANJO pipeline ties into Boomvanng and Nansen at GA-A mile Perdido export pipeline ties into a deepwater subsea tie-in near Hoover Boomvang Nansen Hoover - Diana Gunnison Perdido 3

4 HOOPS Bypass Inspection - Background Two pipeline dead legs exist near the GA-A244 platform on the HOOPS pipeline. Dead Legs are sections of the pipeline circuit that contain idle, stagnant or intermittently flowing fluids. Since they are not in continuous services they are particularly susceptible to corrosion and degradation. The primary scope of work for this project was to examine the pipe segments in the dead-leg zones for internal wall loss that might have been caused by microbial influenced corrosion (MIC), or any other local internal corrosion mechanism. 12 bypass with isolation valve between upstream and downstream segments 16 wye and valve on dead leg spool on upstream side of GA- A244 platform. EMPCo risk assessment of bypass integrity assessed dead legs as level II on risk matrix Concern on MIC exposure and deterioration of internal lining Bypass valve has not been opened in 15 years of operation 4

5 HOOPS Pipeline Bypass Inspection Objectives Perform external inspection to determine level of corrosion present in the subsea dead legs in vicinity of GA-A244 EMPCo work with EMPC and EMDC for inspection execution guidance. Leverage intercompany knowledge with application of subsea in-situ external corrosion inspection technologies and review of inspection data Leverage intercompany experience in planning offshore operations to safely access, inspect, and restore the subsea dead leg areas Key Activities Selection of appropriate technologies and contractors for in-situ corrosion inspection Contractor Selection Commercial Procurement Contractor, vessel, dive system and crane assurance inspections Subcontracting to develop a site-specific kit for the NDT inspection, including mock-up SIT. Mobilization of the Dive Support Vessel to GA-A244. Uncovering each dead leg and preparing the pipe sections for inspection. Performing the NDT inspections. Re-installing grout/sandbags and mattresses to support and protect each dead leg. GA-A244 Platform Bypass Dead-leg Wye Dead-leg 5

6 Site Preparation (1) Purpose: Clear all cover / material from the areas around the pipeline area, excavate clearance around dead legs, and prepare for inspection. 10 Key Activities: Remove/ peel back concrete mattresses Break up/ excavate sand bags/ grout bags Dredge underneath dead legs Temporary supports or fixtures 30 High probability of concrete 3:1 bags and/or mattresses placed beneath piping flanges & wishbone piggable wye during installation. Assume lifting points on mattresses and sand bags/grout bags integrity has degraded over years since installation Evaluate concerns to ROV operation over operating pipeline with proximity to pipe versus controlled diver operations. ROV only operation, including tooling, would be estimated to take substantively longer and cost greater than and combined ROV / Diving option. 10 Working areas (notional) 25 Support may be required 6

7 Corrosion Inspection and Valve Check (2) Proposed Inspection area Valve Check Bypass dead leg: Limited access around left side of dead leg for currently available tools (less than 3 ) Individual tool access requirements and dead zone at ends limit the range of coverage of an individual tool (varies between (1-2 -in up to 1 ) Preference for ring shaped tools to map either in circumferential or axial directions with automated UT corrosion mapping with high density on bottom quadrant Geometry is made of straight sections with interaction around tees and valve mid way Subsea ball valve has not been stroked in recent history (10+ years), weigh chance for success Actuation of subsea valve by ROV requires modifications Wye Dead leg: Two different diameters (20, 16 ) with a concentric reducer Nearly all of wye branch is composed of long radius induction bend, ruling out application of long linear UT mapping tools Individual tool access requirements and dead zone at ends could limit inspection of some tools in area adjacent to wye, reducer, and valve flange Few self crawling elements are able navigate long radius bends Preference for UT corrosion mapping at high density of measurements or multiple passes on bottom quadrant Proposed Inspection area 7

8 GA-A244 EMPCo HOOPs Dead Leg Inspection 8

9 GA-A244 EMPCo HOOPs Dead Leg Inspection 9

Planning Process Selection of appropriate

corrosion inspection Contractor Selection

site-specific kit for the NDT inspection,

10 Planning Process Selection of appropriate technologies and contractors for in-situ corrosion inspection Contractor Selection Commercial Procurement Contractor vetting, vessel, dive system and crane assurance Subcontracting of Sonomatic to develop a site-specific kit for the NDT inspection, including mock-up SIT. Procedures development, risk assurance 10

11 ExxonMobil Diving Expectations & GP ExxonMobil USM Chapter 27 ExxonMobil GP

12 Diving Industry Guidelines and Regulations OGP Report No. 411 United States Coast Guard 46 CFR Part 197, Subpart B - "Commercial Diving Operations." 12

13 13

14 14

15 Sonomatic AUT Mock-up and SIT 15

16 Sonomatic AUT Mock-up and SIT 16

17 Sonomatic AUT Mock-up and SIT 17

18 Dive Support Vessel Bibby Sapphire 18

19 Bibby Sapphire Saturation System Audit 19

20 GA-A244 EMPCo HOOPs Dead Leg Inspection 20

21 Diver Hands-on Tool training 21

22 22

23 Diver Hands-on Tool training 23

24 GA-A244 EMPCo HOOPs Dead Leg Inspection 24

25 25

26 GA-A244 EMPCo HOOPs Dead Leg Inspection 26

27 GA-A244 EMPCo HOOPs Dead Leg Inspection 27

28 GA-A244 EMPCo HOOPs Dead Leg Inspection 28

29 29

30 30

31 31

32 GA-A244 EMPCo HOOPs Dead Leg Inspection 32

33 GA-A244 EMPCo HOOPs Dead Leg Inspection 33

34 34

35 GA-A244 EMPCo HOOPs Dead Leg Inspection Results 35

36 36

37 37

38 38

39 39

40 GA-A244 EMPCo HOOPs Dead Leg Inspection Results Summary 40

41 GA-A244 EMPCo HOOPs Dead Leg Inspection Safety Results Contractor Aqueos Subsea, Bibby Subsea Sub- Contractor Sonomatic Inspection Project Duration - 7 days of Execution, 5 days Decompression 38 - Saturation Bell Lock-outs 345 feet of seawater hours of Diver Bottom Time 11,652 - Project man hours 0 - Safety or Environmental Incidents 41

43 US GoM Diving Safety Workgroup Vision Statement The US GoM Diving Safety Workgroup is a US GoM focused, non-competitive and non-commercial group of oil and gas operators, transmission companies, commercial diving companies, supporting sub-contractors, organizations and industry stake holders. The group will provide a unified voice to promote and improve diving safety, through the following: identification and sharing of best practices identify and seek solutions to industry challenges and issues review and comment of existing and proposed standards and guidelines provide input to the regulators and industry associations US GoM Diving Safety Work Group 43

44 About the DSWG History- Concept discussed in 2011 First DSWG General meeting held in February 2012 By-Laws adopted in May 2012 DSWG website rolled out in January Membership 33 General Members 24 Affiliate Members 2017 Membership 55 General Members 66 Affiliate Members US GoM Diving Safety Work Group

45 About the DSWG Continual Interaction with Regulatory and Industry Groups USCG (U.S. Coast Guard) ADCI (Association of Diving Contractors International) IMCA (International Marine Contractors Association) IOGP (International Oil and Gas Producers) OOC (Offshore Operators Committee) API (American Petroleum Institute) Recognized by these groups Requested to comment on proposed rules, Recommended Practices, etc. Representatives from some of these groups regularly attend our meetings US GoM Diving Safety Work Group

46 About the DSWG Accomplishments Through group comments and vetting, provided input into future USCG Commercial Diving Regulations Provided comments to IMCA on document revisions Provided comments and influence related to Diver Certification Acknowledgment through face to face meetings Developed Guidance documents Provided an Industry Forum for Incident, Safety, and Information Shares (over 300 Incident Shares to date) US GoM Diving Safety Work Group

47 About the DSWG Committees and Developed Documents Live boating Guidelines Underwater Burning Guidelines Underwater Lift-bag Guidelines Hyperbaric Evacuation System Planning Hand Jetting for Underwater Excavation Minimum Manning Levels Emergency Response and Procedures Company Representative Guidelines Recommended Emergency Drills US GoM Diving Safety Work Group

48 LinkedIn Group US GoM Diving Safety Work Group US GoM Diving Safety Work Group UW Burning Committee Work Group 48

GOM Diving Safety Work Group. Recommended Minimum Dive Team Manning 3/18/2016

GOM Diving Safety Work Group. Recommended Minimum Dive Team Manning 3/18/2016 GOM Diving Safety Work Group COMMITTEE WORK GROUP Recommended Minimum Dive Team Manning 3/8/206 DISCLAIMER This US GOM DSWG document is not meant to be all inclusive, and not every rule and regulation