A Novel Integrity-Assurance Approach for Qualification of Subsea Technologies

Abstract

This article, written by JPT Technology Editor Chris Carpenter, contains highlights of paper OTC 27296, “Development of a Novel Integrity-Assurance Approach for Technology Qualification of New Subsea Technologies by Deepstar,” by S. Furtado and H. Hamedifar, DNV GL; K. Mateen, Total; L. Huyse, Chevron; L.M. Rivero, Total; and G. Kusinski, Chevron, prepared for the 2016 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 2–5 May. The paper has not been peer reviewed. A study has been conducted to develop a methodology in which integrity of the various components of a new technology can be quantified, even in the absence of failure data from the field. The study recognizes the importance of having a common understanding and definition of key principles used in technology qualification (TQ) and a common view of integrity-assurance-acceptance criteria in the oil and gas industry. Introduction The deepwater industry uses TQ as a tool to determine which safety barriers are needed, as well as what level of testing is required. TQs have traditionally focused on technical systems and capabilities at the component level. Much less attention has been given to systematic factors, however. Knowledge of systems involves understanding of the integrity of technologies during design, construction, operation, and maintenance. It is accepted that there is a lack of common ground and consistency in qualifying new technologies in the subsea industry. Qualification Approaches in Other Industries Other industries, such as the nuclear, aerospace, and automotive industries, have a more established reliability-engineering history and address failure rates and mean life of systems and products in a numerical or quantitative manner. These industries make use of the following methodologies: Immense amounts of monitoring data Much lengthier qualification processes Natural and frequent check and monitoring points Uniformity of application Weibull distribution Regression analysis Essentially, the three industries named deal with many components and systems that have undergone a lengthy qualification effort. Moreover, there is significant monitoring of the performance parameters. The systems and equipment in these industries have a much more uniform application range than those of the offshore industry. Finally, there are natural and repeated intervention or access points to the equipment for repair, maintenance, and checkup. In the oil and gas offshore industry, applications are not uniform, access and monitoring are very limited, and the number of equipment items with meaningful failure data is minuscule compared with, say, hundreds of millions of automobiles on the roads.