Materials Performance

DEC 2016

Materials Performance is the world's most widely circulated magazine dedicated to corrosion prevention and control. MP provides information about the latest corrosion control technologies and practical applications for every industry and environment.

Issue link: http://mp.epubxp.com/i/754611

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 56 of 80

54 DECEMBER 2016 MATERIALS PERFORMANCE NACE INTERNATIONAL: VOL. 55, NO. 12 CM CORROSION MANAGEMENT corrosion or noncorrosion engineering- based. The following are several examples of the latter : • Inspection activities • Data management (techniques) • Communication • Competencies Based on this approach, even the as- signment of an asset corrosion engineer is an integrity management measure. Simi- larly, communication plays a very crucial role in either maintaining or disrupting an incumbent AIMS. The significance and usefulness of such a practical definition for an integrity man- agement measure becomes evident during the first stage of the corrosion manage- ment process, which is the integrity review process (IRP). During an IRP, both corrosion and non- corrosion engineering-based integrity man- agement measures should be reviewed. Such a comprehensive approach during an IRP enables the reviewer to consider more critical factors and identify more im- provement opportunities. Enhancing MIC Mitigation Through Corrosion Management Applications The CCM process involves carrying out the following three main components: 1. The IRP 2. Performance monitoring 3. Effectiveness assessments Applying these components could re- solve and enhance the specific shortcom- ings listed in Table 1. Furthermore, the cor- rosion management concept, in tandem with the definition offered for an integrity management measure, could also address the two general shortcomings. The corro- sion management approach, unlike other historical integrity management notions that consider only corrosion engineering- based parameters, also considers various noncorrosion engin eering-based it ems such as competency levels and data man- agement techniques. Such an extensive ap- proach enables corrosion management implementations to address more proba- bl e sh or t c omin gs. C on sequ ently, th e y could resolve more integrity-related issues whether they are corrosion engineering- based or not. Table 2 lists the three corro- sion management components and the FIGURE 1 The integrity management measures (the yellow boxes), and the parameters that influence their successful and effective implementation. The emphasis is on the noncorrosion engineering-based measures and their parameters. chemicals), relevant and effective integrity management results often are not achieved because personnel have not been trained to correctly utilize these tools. In other cases, personnel could not properly process the generated data because they could not ad- equately evaluate the performance of vari- ous integrity measures or even develop a good understanding of typical integrity is- sues associated with specific sections of the seawater injection system. Some of the observed specific shortcomings are listed in Table 1. What Is Corrosion Management? Corrosion control management (CCM) for any oil and gas asset could be defined as the process of reviewing all the required integrity management measures, regularly monitoring their performance and assess- ing their effectiveness post-commission- ing. In the aforementioned definition, the term "all the required integrity manage- ment measures" refers to both corrosion and noncorrosion engineering-based pa- rameters (Figure 1). The former includes design, materials selection, and chemical treatment; and the latter includes inspec- tion, corrosion monitoring, management, and failure risk assessment (FRA). 1 The noncorrosion engineering-based integrity measures—except for the man- agement requirements listed in Figure 1 and their pertinent factors—must be deter- mined before these integrity measures can be successfully implemented. Past experi- ence has demonstrated that this new ap- proach enhances asset uptime and opti- mizes the associated integrity management costs and resource assignment. 2-3 An integrity management measure is often regarded as corrosion engineering- based; however, there are also noncorro- sion engineering-based measures that play equally significant roles in the thorough- ness, effectiveness, and proper functioning of an asset integrity management system (AIMS). Therefore, an integrity manage- ment measure could be defined as anything that contributes to an AIMS (e.g., an activ- ity, a document, a procedure, or an individ- ual's competence) and influences its func- t i o n i n g , e f f e c t iv e n e s s , a n d o u t c o m e . Therefore, all the integrity management measures noted in Figure 1 could be either

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Materials Performance - DEC 2016