Articles

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.

The most financially damaging threats any plant, pipeline or refinery executive faces are those associated with unplanned shutdowns. The average refinery faces an annual risk of $25 million per year due to failures of static equipment.