Article Featured in PCE Performance Coatings Europe!

An Inspectors View from the Field - External Corrosion Management Systems In this issue, Lee Wilson discusses External Corrosion Management Systems and poses the question, are they really working or is it a case off too little too late?. The UKs Health and Safety Executive can now be seen to be taking a stronger stance on the significant corrosion issues which the offshore oil and gas industry is currently facing. Before we look at this in more detail we have to ask why are we currently in this situation and what does this mean for the protective coatings industry ? The offshore oil and gas industry is now in a position where many North Sea platforms have been producing and servicing our needs for 25 to 30 + years, which is well beyond many of the assets intended life spans, especially taking into consideration the severity of the corrosion environment in which these platforms are situated. This in itself creates an abundance of challenges for owners and operators to implement adequate corrosion control and protection management systems, however I am afraid to say that many of these offshore assets have been severely neglected by owners and operators and the essential systems required for corrosion control in some cases are simply not in place The HSE Offshore Division have in the past actively urged operators and owners to develop external corrosion management (ECM) projects and procedures in order to reduce the risk of safety hazards due to platform and system degradation, yet we still see improvement notices being served to oil majors despite this strong stance. We have to face the facts - the extended life spans of these platforms, coupled with severe corrosive environments and years of neglect through a general lack of fabric maintenance and refurbishment, has ultimately led to a number of North Sea assets falling into a serious and potentially dangerous state of disrepair. This is not an illusion! There are well documented cases of serious injury and incidents including fatalities in the offshore sectors which can be attributed directly to corrosion. This is primarily due to the neglect of fabric maintenance, coating refurbishments and general corrosion monitoring and mitigation which has gone unchecked for years. With this said, it is clear to see the reasons for the HSEs strong stance regarding external corrosion management. So what is being done about this I hear you say? Well some of the major owners and operators within the industry can now be seen to be implementing ECM Systems, however are these patch painting programmes sufficient once a platform has passed that point of no return and is no longer a feasible option as simply its all a potential risk ? Are ECM systems in these situations really a case of too little too late?. Taking into consideration the extent of corrosion degradation and deterioration which

is clearly evident and significant on a number of North Sea offshore platforms, something which I have personally witnessed, and which is well documented and recorded, and without the huge concerns associated with corrosion under insulation and the ever present threat of hydrocarbon / gas leaks from corroded pipe work and pressure vessels ( which alone are causing major problems and creating widespread chaos within the industry), one would assume that owners and operators alike would and should be looking at incorporating long term corrosion protection and routine fabric maintenance, rather than smoke and mirror wallpapering exercises which jeopardize platform integrity, production and the safety of offshore personnel. It appears that platform owners do not realize that there is a level of degradation/deterioration and breakdown that is to be regarded as a point of no return in the sense that from that moment onwards the maximum effort that can be made from a safe, structural, logistical and financial perspective is no longer sufficient to stop or control corrosion and coating breakdown but will only delay the inevitable. This is where there is no choice other than to carry out full scale corrosion repair and coating refurbishment as opposed to an ECM system, which is in effect an expensive diversion from really tackling the corrosion problems, while being seen to be doing something for the benefit of the HSE. With this in mind I have to ask, are we really heading in the right direction? Taking all of the above into consideration I would have to say that personally I dont think we are and I have to disagree with current trends for ECM systems adopted by some owners and operators. The simple fact is that under the new trend of ECM systems, no matter which way you look at it, the platform is still losing its integrity and unfortunately as good as it may look on paper is still terminally corroding. We have to remember that during refurbishment under ECM systems not all corroded areas are being fully repaired and areas of the platform is still left unprotected with the structure more or less allowed to corrode! The focus of repair is drawn to critical areas, and although two adjacent areas may be corroded, one may not be treated by the contractor during the painting repair procedure which is dependent on its state of deterioration as determined by a surveyor under RBI and the ECM system. This in my opinion is where it all goes terribly wrong for example: Are we not just relocating anodes?. Should we not after all be trying to eliminate the corrosion process once the point of no return has been reached?. Are we not just trying to manage the unmanageable My point is simply, why pretend to manage the deterioration of a platform or any other structure for that matter, once that critical point has been reached, when you can effectively eliminate the problem by introducing a systematic and orchestrated approach using fabric maintenance to completely eradicate the immediate threat of corrosion. We should forget we are playing with the lives of hundreds if not thousands of offshore personnel Please dont get me wrong, there is of course a place for ECM systems and once successfully implemented and delivered they can be of tremendous use in regards to asset Integrity, however these should be implemented at the very beginning of an

assets lifecycle, not I must stress 30 years later when that point of no return has been reached. I have to add that even the HSE seems to agree with this school of thought as in a statement directly from the HSE website the HSE Offshore Division states the following, Offshore Division seeks a lifecycle management approach which starts with the initial selection of appropriate materials and follows through the lifecycle with effective inspection, maintenance, repair and replacement. This is an excellent concept for new build platforms and installations ensuring prolonged asset integrity throughout a platforms lifecycle however. What we have to remember is that all coating systems eventually fail - this is nothing new, we all recognize this as a given so it shouldnt come as a great surprise when the protective coating system begins to naturally deteriorate. My point is, this is where ECM systems can and do, if successfully managed and delivered, come in to their own. Lifecycle corrosion management does work if incorporated at the beginning of an assets lifespan however in my opinion it is simply not enough when faced with the huge task of confronting and rectifying the offshore sectors serious corrosion problems. I would have to say to operators where external corrosion management is no longer feasible, nor possible, then in my opinion, and if common sense was to prevail, there is little option other than a full-site upgrade or fabric maintenance campaign. It is believed that ECM systems will save money, with some providers boasting that they can safely manage corrosion rates until decommissioning of the structure. Perhaps this is true however the platform is still corroding and deteriorating and I must ask, how long do operators intend to keep these platforms in production? The answer to this question is rather simple, as long as the black gold is flowing then the platforms will remain in-situ. Further more if corrosion can be safely managed until decommissioning, how is it the industry finds itself in a position where more than 90% of platforms which were inspected by the HSEs offshore division are considered to be in need of improvement and why is the HSE taking such a strong stance upon external corrosion ?. If something is corroded it will continue to corrode until some form of adequate corrosion protection is put in place - this is a pretty simple concept It is also claimed that Fabric Maintenance campaigns and constant painting i.e. core crew activitys are too expensive, however, I would like to ask readers what they thinks the cost of a shutdown of a North Sea platform is and how many shutdowns are happening due to corrosion related issues ? I am pretty sure that maintenance ultimately pays for itself in the long run. Another major concern with using the patch painting ECM system is that it really is a false economy! I have already explained how the platform is still in my opinion terminally corroding as we have not stopped the corrosion process in our attempts to manage it, but there are also great concerns regarding the actual quality of the work

carried out. These systems go against everything that a surface preparator and coating applicator is taught i.e. if something is severely corroded then it is to be repaired, however, under this new methodology this is not the case, and thus is entirely disheartening to the tradesmen trying to execute the work. How bad is this problem? You just have to go back to 2010 when the North Sea oil and gas industry was told to ' raise the game on safety' after a huge jump in gas releases, as quoted from The Scotsman, 24 August 2010. BRITAIN'S oil and gas industry was today ordered to "up its game" on safety following revelations that the number of potentially catastrophic gas releases on offshore installations has risen by more than a third in the past year. The number of "major and significant" releases of hydrocarbons - gas and oil from North Sea platforms operating in British waters has increased from 61 to 85 in the past 12 months, taking the total to its highest level since 2003. As well as this rather worrying article, in which a lot of cases were directly attributed to corrosion, further evidence of how bad this really is can be found in the recently published External Corrosion Management Report issued by the offshore division of the HSEs Hazardous Installations Directorate. It was found that Physical conditions on more than 90% of the North Sea installations inspected need improvement, some of it significantly. The report was compiled from the External Corrosion Management Inspection Project which was carried out in the offshore industry between 2007 and 2010 by the Health and Safety Executives Offshore Division. The report involved in-depth ECM inspections of 30 offshore installations within the North Sea carried out over a three year period implemented to examine everything from corporate culture to maintenance plans and physical conditions of assets in order to gauge the overall risk from external corrosion. (editors note : for more information on the HSE report, see the January/March issue of PCE) We are well aware that painting and coating of platforms is considered to be the prime defence against corrosion, providing the first line barrier against the highly corrosive environment and this was one factor carefully assessed by the HSE Inspectors. In summary the report highlighted: the need for continuous painting and anomaly repair programmes as well as the provision of permanent offshore painting teams to be incorporated into the offshore installation ECM systems. The report went onto state that although several duty holders are undertaking patch painting programmes and although the principle is in theory sound, there has been evidence of poor surface preparation and coating application and duty holders should recognise the need for adequate quality control measures for this type of work. Continuous painting programmes This was one of the main recommendations indicated by the HSE within the ECM report and I have to ask the reader why do you think that is? I believe that the HSE are well aware that patch painting programmes are not sufficient and that full time

painting teams are indeed a necessity for asset protection and should always be incorporated as part of the core crew maintenance team of any offshore asset, however leaving a team of painters onboard permanently does not eradicate the problem its the way in which the campaign is orchestrated and executed as well as monitored which will really make the difference. Dont get me wrong not all owners and operators are neglecting their assets or adopting management systems once corrosion has reached an unmanageable point, as one major North Sea operator has recently completed a full cross-site upgrade of their recently adopted North Sea assets. Owners and operators dedicated to this course of action should be commended for their efforts in the battle against corrosion. I believe the answer to this problem lies with the owners directly as ultimately they will decide the future of their aging assets and I believe that this will also govern the future of protective coatings in an offshore environment as a lot of advancements in coating technology have been designed to cope with the North Sea marine environment. My advice is simple maintain your platforms, keep a core crew of surface preparators and painters onboard, do not neglect the upkeep of your platforms, and when all else fails and something is broken, do the right thing and fix it. Lets hope that something is done and done soon before its to late!