Engineering News and Mining Weekly

Firm lists corrosion concerns for long-lead items

- LYNNE DAVIES | CREAMER MEDIA REPORTER

Oil and gas facility owners and operators face numerous challenges regarding effective corrosion protection that can directly impact on their operating a profitable, safe and compliant facility, says corrosion technologi­es developer Cortec.

Oil and gas facilities are inherently complex operations requiring highly engineered, highcost spares, as well as “low dollar value, but high dollar risk parts”, explains Cortec integrity management and preservati­on solutions VP Bob Boyle.

As these facilities are often situated in remote locations that necessitat­e long-lead times and thousands of line items to allow for the continuous operation of critical systems, companies cannot rely on ‘just-in-time’ manufactur­ing or logistics processes.

“This results in the standard original-equipment manufactur­er- (OEM-) based transit protection being insufficie­nt for oil and gas facilities . . . OEMs design for easier locations and lack the knowledge, experience or ability to customise their methods for the lead-time challenges posed by, for example, offshore oil and gas facilities,” he elaborates.

Supply Chain Issues

The supply chain has multiple handoff points, making it very challengin­g for many traditiona­l methods of corrosion control to remain intact and effective through transition­s – from OEMs; freight forwarders; engineerin­g, procuremen­t and constructi­on contractor­s; and materials handling at goods receipt, to storage on the shelf.

Goods receipt, which is often overlooked because of speed and cost considerat­ions, has become a critical factor in the detection of corrosion or mechanical damage in the transporte­d equipment.

It is often a liability from a handoff perspectiv­e because it is usually staffed by personnel who are not expected to thoroughly inspect or identify the spares, and often only count and move the items to stockholdi­ng facilities.

Goods receipt processes can, however, involve spare parts being inspected competentl­y, as opposed to OEM preservati­on measures involving packaging and crating products designed only to deliver to the site, not for an extended period beyond.

According to Boyle the only way to restore a preservati­on period would involve essentiall­y repairing the damage, replacing the desiccant and pulling a vacuum again – which is often more expensive and requires materials and tools that are often not located in the goods receipt area.

“Some clients have, therefore, shifted to preservati­on and goods receipt co-existing, so the right competency is located where it is needed – and 100% quality control can be attained for any items destined for the shelf.”

He adds that, in other cases, preservati­on is pushed back to suppliers and carefully specified so that the preservati­on methods can withstand comprehens­ive inspection processes.

“Proper preservati­on material selection is the best first step. The material selection and specificat­ion process should be specific to the desired ‘pick-and-pull’ strategy, allowing for goods receipt for nonoperati­ng maintenanc­e, audits, inspection­s on the shelf and staging.”

Noting that it is not always an option to push the corrosion mitigation back onto the supplier, Boyle advises that oil and gas facilities should implement effective financial accountabi­lity processes, as well as an on-site corrosion mitigation programme that could be co-located with the preservati­on area.

“When done well, this allows for robust protection that harmonises with the various touch points for not only goods receipt for material movements or staging for turnaround, but also issuance to operations and return to stock.”

He adds that goods receipts are an opportunit­y to reject or return items – which is often an important and “perhaps difficult choice” guided by cost, lead time and immediate demand – and often does not allow for an effective solution for the operationa­l side of the plant.

Further, with oil and gas facility downtime being “staggering­ly expensive”, planned and unplanned downtime and outages form part of an “incredibly tight supply and maintenanc­e schedule”.

Therefore, any part that cannot be installed because of corrosion can cost “thousands in shipping or hotshot costs, and disrupt the even more expensive repair schedule”, he says.

Cortec collaborat­es with suppliers, project owners and site operators to design the proper specificat­ions that are practical and cost effective within cost and operation constraint­s.

Often, the first decision that immediatel­y delivers operationa­l savings is simply having a conversati­on with subject matter experts, such as Cortec, says Boyle.

Oil and gas facilities are still subject to engrained habits in some cases, such as their relying on OEMs and freight forwarders operating well outside of their expertise.

“The primary risk we run into is fear of change, showing up as the “blame game” between OEM and [a] facility.”

Harmonisin­g with OEMs, as well as having a proper preservati­on philosophy and preservati­on plans from department­s in place, will ensure the preservati­on programme is effective, Boyle concludes.

 ?? ?? PROPER PREPARATIO­N Proper preservati­on material selection is the best first step
PROPER PREPARATIO­N Proper preservati­on material selection is the best first step

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa