Articles

For owner operators of asset intensive corporations, a primary challenge is often that of budget allocation. Specifically: How can I garner the most profitability from my assets within the confines of the budget resources available to me?

“The Pipeline Hazardous Material Safety Administration, a branch of the U.S. Department of Transportation has identified material, weld and construction quality as a major source of leaks during commissioning hydrostatic pressure tests, the first years of operations and later in the life of a pipeline. PHMSA’s findings indicate a need for better quality assurance in the pipeline construction industry.”^[1] The best strategy for pipeline owner operators to protect themselves against these quality risks is to implement a thorough quality management system (QMS), as laid out in API Recommended Practice 1177.

In our first article of this series, we examined the differences between the terms Asset Performance Management (APM) and Asset Integrity Management (AIM). That article took a quick look at the differences between the two terms at a high level. Today, we are taking a deeper look into the components of the two terms and how they complement each other for ultimate profitability, both for owner operators and for shareholders.

In our previous article, we examined the benefits of digitalization for asset integrity management. This month, we are examining the ways that digitalization can be leveraged in pipeline construction projects for improved quality assurance, project efficiency, and overall ROI.

Owner operators of asset-intensive corporations are starting to realize the operational and profit potential of harnessing new technologies, namely the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT). IIoT refers to the phenomenon of utilizing technology to connect a series of physical assets to measure and/or enhance industrial processes. Essentially, it equates to digitalization. In the world of asset integrity management (AIM), this means intelligent analytics to modernize the plant to an asset-control environment. Adopting IIoT helps owner operators to automate, improve and transform their processes for increased profitability, enhanced safety, and reduced loss of containment.

By now, the benefits of utilizing a comprehensive Asset Integrity Management (AIM) software have been firmly established. Yet, an AIM product is only as good as the sum of its parts. One of the key elements of any AIM software – indeed, the building block from which it is formed – is one of the least discussed. Namely: Integrity Manuals (IM).

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.