Articles

Risk Based Inspection (RBI). A pillar in modern asset integrity technology, its benefits have become widely known and accepted (we examined all of the ways RBI reduces shutdowns and improves profitability in previous articles, here and here). The intelligent risk analysis afforded in comparing an asset’s unique likelihood of failure vs. its consequence of failure allows operators to reliably extend inspection intervals. In fact, RBI has been shown to reduce inspection points by 80-95%, and cut down the likelihood of unplanned shutdowns by more than half.

When it comes to asset integrity management (AIM), few sectors are as comprehensive and in need as the pipeline industry. With potentially hundreds of miles of pipeline segments, a multitude of different assets across initial gathering and process facilities, and the exorbitant amount of data captured from the initial pipeline construction through the asset’s lifecycle, it is no wonder that an entire market of products exists with the sole purpose of managing pipeline integrity. In fact, many owner operators of pipelines today utilize such programs, called Pipeline Integrity Management Systems (PIMS), for their mechanical integrity needs.

Two “buzz terms” have been floating around in the world of asset management recently: Asset Performance Management (APM) and Asset Integrity Management (AIM). Semantically, they appear to be very similar. Indeed, that has led to a lot of confusion throughout the industry. Professionals from asset-intensive organizations are often asking: What are these terms? Do they mean the same thing? If not, what’s the difference? Why should I care?

The LNG industry is expanding rapidly, growing 4-6% annually. In fact, LNG now accounts for 12% of all gas demand. ^[1] This is in large part due to new technologies that have surfaced in the industry in recent years – namely offshore facilities like Floating Storage Regasification Units (FSRUs) and Floating Liquefaction – that are increasing the market’s reach and encouraging global liquefaction development. ^[2]

The immediate cost saving advantages of adopting a Risk Based Inspection (RBI) approach to asset integrity management are gaining momentum. More and more corporations are realizing that RBI, with its ability to intelligently analyze equipment’s probability of failure (POF) vs consequence of failure (COF), is the more prudent approach to managing their critical assets. It assures that a structured, systematic, and technically defensible approach is used to make decisions. After all, it drastically reduces instances of equipment failure and more than halves the likelihood of unplanned shutdowns.

When it comes to centralized asset integrity management (AIM), few industries have as critical a need for it than the Mining industry. In particular, many Oil Sands Mining companies have benefited dramatically from implementing these innovative and pro-active mechanical integrity solutions to manage and protect their critical assets.

When it comes to implementing a mechanical integrity management program to protect critical assets, one of the most essential factors to consider is regulatory compliance. Adherence to regulatory standards protects owner operators from costly fines or possible insurance benefit losses that may accompany failed audits. Further, it expands the profit potential of the organization by improving equipment reliability and reducing costly instances of critical asset failure.

Few understand the rigorous environmental, safety, legal and regulatory requirements of asset management like those in the Midstream Oil & Gas sector. Without proper integrity management of their critical network of assets, catastrophic loss of containment could result in increased environmental hazards, loss of life, devastating lawsuits, and unplanned shutdowns – costing owner operators tens of millions of dollars.

Few industries understand the complex challenges of asset integrity management as well as those in the Petrochemical sector. Due to the nature of the industry, owner operators are often responsible for a vast array of equipment types, materials and processes that can be more varied than facilities in the Oil & Gas sector. Further to this, Petrochemical companies operate under exponentially larger risk of safety and environmental mishaps, including dangerous leakages, loss of containment, and formation of toxins, explosive materials or fire, simply due to the nature of the materials used.

In a world dependent upon the transportation of fossil fuels, fewer industries have a more pressing need to ensure project success than that of pipeline construction and inspection. With safe, timely, project operations at the forefront of this industry’s needs, why is it still so dependent on dated, inefficient practices?