Pipeline RBI R0a.hadi (October)

Pipeline Risk Based
Inspection
This document contains certain results of operation, WNTS
and may&
also contain
Block B
certain projections, plans, strategies, policies and objectives of the
Natuna
Company, which could be treated as forward looking statements within the
October 2019 by their nature, AI Eng
meaning of applicable law. Forwards looking statements,
involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and
development to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these
statements. PT MEDCO E&P INDONESIA does not guarantee that any
action, which should have been taken in reliance on this document will
bring specific results as expected.
2
Objectives
RBI is used to identify and

understand risk, risk drivers, and
improving the reliability assets
RBI is used to prioritize inspection

activities related to risk management
RBI is used to optimize an inspection

strategy based on risk management
RBI is risk based approach for

MIGAS certification requirement
3
Agenda
01 INTRODUCTION RBI PIPELINE
02 RBI PIPELINE METHODOLOGY
03 RBI RESULT
04 SUMMARY
4
Introduction RBI Pipeline

WNTS & Export Pipelines Block B Pipelines
WHO Pipelines
EHO Pipelines
5

WNTS & Export Pipelines
Size
No. WNTS Zone Service From To Length (km)
(inch)
1 WNTS Zone 1 28 Gas KP 000+000 KP 009+000 9
4 WNTS Zone 4 22 Gas SSTI-N SSTI-S 90
5 WNTS Zone 5 22 Gas Anoa Field SSTI-N 34
6 Lateral Gajah Baru 16 Gas Gajah Baru Anoa Expansion Tee 2.6
7 Lateral Kakap 14 Gas Kakap Field SSTI-N 49
8 Lateral MOGPU 16 Gas MOGPU SSTI-S 11.6
Size
No. Export Pipeline Service From To Length (km)
(inch)
9 16" Gas ADGF PLEM 16 Gas ADGF PLEM Hang Tuah 0.15
to Hang Tuah
10 12" Gas ADGF PLEM 12 Gas ADGF PLEM MOGPU 0.15
to MOGPU
18" Gas Hang Tuah
11 to Duyong 18 Gas Hang Tuah Duyong 69.13
12 24" Gas FPSO Bow 24 Gas FPSO ADGF PLEM 93.4

PLEM to ADGF PLEM
6

No. Area Service Pipeline Year PIS Length
(km)
WHO Pipelines
1 Belida Gas 12” Gas DPPA to MOGPU 1999 32.4

2 Belida Fuel Gas 8” Fuel Gas DPPA to INTAN 1992 2.4
3 Belida Oil 12” Oil Export DPPA to INTAN 1992 2.4
4 Belida Gas 12” Gas #1 WHPB to DPPA 1992 3.55
5 Belida Gas 12” Gas #2 WHPB to DPPA 1992 3.55
6 Belida Gas 12” BG02 WHPB to DPPA 2010 3.55
7 Belida Gas 8” Gas Lift DPPA to WHPB 1992 3.55
8 Belida Oil 18” Oil F-BA WHPB to DPPA 1997 3.55
9 Hang Tuah Gas 14” Gas Bawal to Hang Tuah 2013 39.8
10 Hang Tuah Gas 14” Gas Buntal to Hang Tuah 2003 8.0
Length
No. Area Service Pipeline Year PIS (km)
1 Hiu-Kerisi Gas 16” Gas Hiu to Kerisi PLEM 2006 6.6
2 Hiu-Kerisi Gas 16” Gas Kerisi PLEM to Kerisi CPP 2006 0.5
3 Hiu-Kerisi Gas 16” Gas Prod Kerisi PLEM to MID PLEM Belanak 2006 22.1
EHO Pipelines
4 Hiu-Kerisi Gas 16” Gas Prod Kerisi CPP to Kerisi PLEM 2007 0.5
5 Hiu-Kerisi Oil 12” Oil Prod Kerisi PLEM to MID PLEM Belanak 2007 22.1
6 Hiu-Kerisi Oil 12” Oil Prod Kerisi CPP to Kerisi PLEM 2006 0.5
7 Belanak Oil 16” Oil Line1 MID PLEM to OOB Oil 2002 2.1
8 Belanak Oil 16” Oil Line2 MID PLEM to OOB Oil 2002 2.1
9 Belanak 3-phase 16” Fluid WHPB to BOW PLEM Belanak 2002 3.66
10 Belanak Gas Injection 6” Gas Inject MID PLEM Belanak to WHPA 2002 3.83
11 Belanak 3-phase 16” Fluid WHPB to BOW PLEM Belanak 2002 3.15
12 Belanak Gas Injection 6” Gas Inject BOW PLEM to WHPB 2002 3.15
13 North Belut Gas 16” Gas NB CPP to Kerisi PLEM 2009 36.7
14 North Belut Condensate 10” Cond. NB CPP to Kerisi PLEM 2009 37
15 North Belut 3-phase 22” Three Phase WHPC to NB CPP 2009 10
16 South Belut Gas 14” Gas South Belut to NB CPP 2014 18
7
RBI Pipeline
• The RBI program has been running on Block B Natuna since 2006.
• Since 2018 MEPN has used in-house excel spreadsheet as a software to run the RBI pipeline program to
manage pipelines asset registers, risk ranking, and inspection activities.
8
Background of RBI Pipeline
Historical Background of RBI Pipeline

1 2 3 4
STARTING TIME-BASED TRANSITION IMPLEMENTATION
2006 - 2008 2014 2017 - 2018 2020
• Time-based • Time-based • Permen 18 tahun • Full implement

Inspection Inspection 2018 – Risk Based risk-based
• First RBI Pipeline • RBI update after Inspection inspection
• RBI is used to 5 year to know • Transition from time
identify and the current risk based to risk based
understand risk status • Optimize inspection
• Using 2 year strategy as per RBI
inspection recommendation
strategy
9
RBI Pipeline Methodology
RBI Concept
RISK = POF x COF
POF : Probability of Failure
COF : Consequence of Failure

10
Probability of Failure (PoF) Determination:

Time Dependent Threats Non-Time Dependent Threats
 Corrosion  Operational Issue
 Erosion  Pipeline Crossing
 Coating and CP System  Impact Damage
 Fatigue/Overstress  External Debris
 Marine Growth  Repair History
11
Consequence of Failure (CoF) Determination:

Consequence of Failure Factor
Total Financial Impact
Loss of Production
Financial
Repair type and cost
Insurance coverage
Product Category
People / Safety
Pipeline Location
Product Category
Environmental Pipeline Diameter
Volume of Spilled Product
Stakeholder
Reputation Media
Regulatory
12
Risk Matrix
Occupational Safety &
Environment Financial Loss Reputation CONSEQUNCE RISK MATRIX
Health
* Serious national and international media coverage
leading to collapse of share price
Extreme environmental damage
Multiple Fatality * Structured outrage or campaign (for > 3 months) from
with permanent effect (>5 years)
>= USD 10 Mio employees, public, with interests from regulator EXTREME 5 10 15 20
Public Hospitalization * High level of concern amongst governments agency
Spill >= 500 bbls
* Major impact on reputation with customers and/or
shareholders
Fatality * Adverse national media coverage
Major environmental with
* Involvement of government agencies
longer time effect
Injury or sick with Prermanent Total USD 1 Mio <= Loss < * Structured campaigning (for < 3 months) from
(3-5 years) to recover MAJOR 4 8 12 16
Disability (PTD) USD 10 Mio employees, community, public, NGOs having a major
impact on Business or asset reputation
100 bbls < Spill < 500 bbls
Multiple Hospitalization
Moderate environmental * Multiple community complaints or criticism by
One or more injury or sick causes
damage with medium time USD 100,000 <= Loss <
community, NGOs or activists
loss of working day (LTI)
effect (3-5 years) to recover * Significant adverse media and public attention MODERATE 3 6 9 12
1 Mio
* Adverse reputation impact from stakeholders
Permanent Partial Disability (PPD)
15 bbls < Spill < 100 bbls
* A single community complaint or concern or criticism
Minor Injury or sick needs a Medical by community, NGOs or activists
Minor environmental damage
Treatment (MTC) * Impact observed within company and information
with short time effect,
USD 10,000 <= Loss < shared with neighbours
recoverable within 1 year MINOR 2 4 6 8
Restricted/Limited work (RWC) or 100,000 * Trivial impact on reputation with stakeholders
temporary transferred to a lighter * Negative local public or media attention or complaints
1 bbl < Spill < bbls
work * Increased scrutiny from regulator
Slight environmental effects, * Impact observed within company, no media

contained / isolated (3-5 years) coverage, no public disruption
Slight Injury (First Aid) or less and
to recover < USD 10,000 * Slight impact on reputation with stakeholders SLIGHT 1 2 3 4
no effect to work
Slill < 3 bbl

LIKELIHOOD VERY UNLIKELY UNLIKELY POSSIBLE LIKELY
Low Acceptable Risk and no mitigation required. Never happened in Ever happened in Ever happened in Ever happened in
Probability
other Company another Company Medco E&P Asset / Location
Tolerable Risk with Justification.
-5 -5 -3 -3 -1 -1
Medium No Mitigation required where controls can be verified as functional. Quantitative < 10 10 - < 10 10 - < 10 >= 10
ALARP should be evaluated, as necessary.
High Intolerable Risk

13
RBI Pipeline Result

WNTS Results
Pipeline/Risk Category 1. LOW 2. MEDIUM 3. MEDIUM 4. HIGH
WNTS Zone 1 33% 0% 67% 0%
WNTS Zone 2 57% 43% 0% 0%
WNTS Zone 3 67% 33% 0% 0%
WNTS Zone 4 56% 44% 0% 0%
Lateral Kakap 71% 29% 0% 0%
Lateral Mogpu 75% 25% 0% 0%
Lateral Gajah Baru 67% 33% 0% 0%
ROV/SSS : 2 year
Inspection Plan ROV/SSS : 2.5 year
ROV/SSS : 4.5 year

14
RBI Pipeline Result

WHO
12" Gas DPPA to MOGPU 0% 0% 100% 0%
8" Fuel Gas DPPA to INTAN 0% 75% 25% 0%
12" Oil Export DPPA to INTAN 0% 25% 75% 0%
12" Gas #1 WHPB to DPPA 0% 50% 50% 0%
12" Gas #2 WHPB to DPPA 0% 0% 100% 0%
8" Gas Lift DPPA to WHPB 0% 100% 0% 0%
18" Oil F-BA WHPB to DPPA 0% 100% 0% 0%
8" Oil DPPA to INTAN 0% 75% 25% 0%
14" Bawal to HangTuah 0% 100% 0% 0%
14" Buntal to HangTuah 0% 100% 0% 0%
MEDIUM-II
ROV/SSS : 2.5 year
Inspection Plan
MEDIUM-I
ROV/SSS : 3 year
15
RBI Pipeline Result

EHO
16" Gas North Belut CPP to Kerisi PLEM 0% 100% 0% 0%
10" Cond. North Belut CPP to Kerisi PLEM 0% 0% 100% 0%
22" 3-Phase WHPC to North Belut CPP 0% 0% 100% 0%
14" South Belut Header to North Belut CPP 0% 100% 0% 0%
16" Oil Line1 MID PLEM-OOB OIL 0% 100% 0% 0%
16" Oil Line2 MID PLEM-OOB OIL 0% 100% 0% 0%
16" Fluid WHPA-MID PLEM Belanak 0% 100% 0% 0%
6" Gas Inject MID PLEM -WHPA 0% 100% 0% 0%
16" Fluid WHPB-BOW PLEM Belanak 0% 100% 0% 0%
6" Gas Inject MID PLEM -WHPB 0% 100% 0% 0%

16
RBI Pipeline Result

EHO (Continued)
16" Gas ADGF PLEM to Hang Tuah 0% 0% 100% 0%
12" Gas ADGF PLEM to MOGPU 0% 100% 0% 0%
18" Gas Hang Tuah to Duyong 0% 100% 0% 0%
24" Gas FPSO Bow PLEM to ADGF PLEM 0% 100% 0% 0%
16” Gas Hiu to Kerisi PLEM 0% 100% 0% 0%
16” Gas Kerisi PLEM to Kerisi CPP (Hiu) 0% 100% 0% 0%
16” Gas Prod Kerisi CPP to Kerisi PLEM 0% 100% 0% 0%
12” Oil Prod Kerisi CPP to Kerisi PLEM 0% 100% 0% 0%
16” Gas Prod Kerisi PLEM to MID PLEM BLNK 0% 100% 0% 0%
12” Oil Prod Kerisi PLEM to MID PLEM BLNK 0% 100% 0% 0%
MEDIUM-II
ROV/SSS : 2.5 year
Inspection Plan
MEDIUM-I
ROV/SSS : 4.5 year
17
Pipeline RBI – WNTS & Block B
Conclusion & Recommendation
Conclusion Recommendation
ThroughRBI,
Through RBI,we
wecan
can
Through RBI, we can
reducerisk
reduce riskfurther
furtherfor
for
reduce risk further samecost
cost
same
for same cost
Optimizing
inspection strategy
Orreduce
Or reducecost
cost
forthe
for thesame
same
risk.
risk.
Or, we can reduce
cost for same risk
Implement risk-
based instead of
time-based
inspection
18
#DO – Inspection Activity
Conclusion & Recommendation
Inspection strategy (Previous)
Pipeline Description Pipeline External Inspection
FIELD
From To Size (inch) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Pulau Sakra (KP 0+00) KP 9+140 28

KP 9+140 KP 19+00 28 SSS ROV SSS Rect. ROV Rect. SSS Rect. ROV
KP 19+00 KP 89+00 28 ROV ROV ROV Rect. SSS Rect. ROV Rect. SSS
KP 89+00 KP 148+00 28 ROV ROV SSS Rect. ROV Rect. SSS Rect. ROV
KP 148+00 KP 290+00 28 ROV ROV SSS Rect. ROV Rect. SSS Rect. ROV
KP 290+00 KP 305+00 28 SSS ROV ROV Rect. SSS Rect. ROV Rect. SSS
KP 305+00 KP 362+00 28 SSS ROV SSS Rect. ROV Rect. SSS Rect. ROV
WNTS
KP 362+00 KP 457+00 28 ROV ROV ROV SSS ROV SSS
KP 457+00 KP 471+00 28 ROV ROV SSS ROV SSS ROV
SSTI-N SSTI-S 22 SSS ROV ROV SSS ROV SSS
SSTI-N Anoa 22 SSS ROV ROV SSS ROV SSS
Gajah Baru SSTI-Anoa 16 ROV ROV ROV SSS ROV SSS
SSTI-N Kakap 14 ROV ROV SSS ROV SSS ROV
SSTI-S MOGPU 16 ROV ROV SSS ROV SSS ROV
Hangtuah Duyong 18 ROV ROV SSS ROV SSS
EXPORT FPSO Bow PLEM ADGF PLEM 24 ROV ROV SSS ROV SSS
ADGF Plem Mogpu 16 ROV ROV SSS ROV SSS
WHPB DPPA 12 ROV ROV ROV ROV
BELIDA
DPPA FSO INTAN 8 ROV ROV ROV ROV
DPPA FSO INTAN 12 ROV ROV ROV ROV
DPPA MOGPU 12 SSS ROV ROV SSS
HT Bawal MOGPU 14 ROV ROV SSS
FPSO Midship PLEM OOB 16 ROV ROV ROV ROV
FPSO Midship PLEM OOB 16 ROV ROV ROV ROV
FPSO Midship PLEM FSO 6 ROV ROV ROV
FPSO Midship PLEM FSO 6 ROV ROV ROV
BELANAK
WHP A FPSO Midship PLEM 16 ROV ROV ROV ROV
FPSO Bow PLEM WHP A 6 ROV ROV ROV ROV
WHP B FPSO Midship PLEM 16 ROV ROV ROV ROV
FPSO Bow PLEM WHP B 6 ROV ROV ROV ROV
Hiu Kerisi PLEM 16 SSS ROV ROV SSS
HIU-KERISI Kerisi PLEM Belanak PLEM 16 SSS ROV ROV SSS ROV SSS
Kerisi PLEM Belanak PLEM 12 SSS ROV ROV SSS ROV SSS
Kerisi CPP North Belut CPP 16 SSS ROV ROV SSS ROV SSS
NORTH
Kerisi CPP North Belut CPP 10 SSS ROV ROV SSS ROV SSS
BELUT
WHPC North Belut CPP 22 SSS ROV ROV SSS ROV SSS
SOUTH
South Belut Well North Belut CPP 14 SSS ROV ROV SSS ROV SSS
BELUT
#CHECK – Monitoring & 19
Corrective Action
Monitoring
IRM Campaign with ROV or SSS to monitoring:

• Free span,
• Cathodic Protection and
• External Damage
Corrective Action
 Free span intervention such as groutbag installation

 CP retrofit installation
#ASSES – Improvement 20
Management
Optimization
Inspection strategy (Optimizing)
Pipeline Description Risk (RBI 2017) Current IRM Program Optimized IRM
WNTS Length
Section KP Current 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Area (km)
28in WNTS 1 148+00 158+00 10 Med ROV SSS ROV SSS ROV SSS SSS ROV SSS ROV
Zone 3 2 158+00 168+00 10 Med ROV SSS ROV SSS ROV SSS SSS ROV SSS ROV
3 168+00 178+00 10 Low ROV SSS ROV SSS ROV SSS SSS ROV SSS ROV
9 228+00 238+00 10 Med ROV SSS ROV SSS ROV SSS SSS ROV SSS ROV
15 288+00 298+00 10 Low SSS ROV SSS ROV SSS ROV ROV SSS ROV SSS
22 358+00 368+00 10 Med SSS ROV SSS ROV SSS ROV ROV SSS ROV SSS
#ACT – Improvement 21
Management
Optimization
Inspection strategy (Optimizing)
#ACT – Improvement 22
Management
Optimization
Cost Optimization
Year
IRM TOTAL
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Original IRM Plan
ROV km 339 0 301 0 339 0 301 0 339 1,619
SSS km 301 0 339 0 301 0 339 0 301 1,581
ROV USD 1,864,500 - 1,655,500 - 1,864,500 - 1,655,500 - 1,864,500 8,904,500
SSS USD 401,835 - 452,565 - 401,835 - 452,565 - 401,835 2,110,635

Optimized IRM Plan
ROV km 339 0 0 339 0 339 0 0 339 1,356
SSS km 0 301 0 301 0 0 301 0 301 1,204
ROV USD 1,864,500 - - 1,864,500 - 1,864,500 - - 1,864,500 7,458,000
SSS USD - 401,835 - 401,835 - - 401,835 - 401,835 1,607,340
 Potential Saving : USD 216,644 / year

Thank You
Professional . Ethical . Open . Innovative
www.medcoenergi.com
Probability of Failure Consequence of Failure
 Semi-Quantitative Methodology Time Dependent Threats

Corrosion
Financial
 Total Financial Impact
• Internal & External Corrosion  Insurance coverage
Erosion Safety
Coating and CP System  Product Category
• General Coating Condition
 Platform Type
• Anode Depletion
• CP System Condition
Environmental
Fatigue/Overstress
 Oil and Condensate
• Buckling Potential  Volume of Spilled Product Gas
• Spanning Potential  Product Category
• Last Free span Assessment  Pipeline Diameter
Marine Growth Reputation
Non Time Dependent Threats  Media Factor
Operational Issue  Stakeholder Factor
Pipeline Crossing  Impact on MEPN Reputation
Impact Damage  Regulatory Factor
External Debris
Repair History
Confidence Factor
Initial Risk  Risk confidence
 Remnant Life Confidence
 FFS Confidence
Time Since Last Initial
Inspection (TSLI) Insp. Interval
Inspection Interval Ratio

(= TSLI / Optimum Inspection Interval)
< 1.1  Probability is not adjusted
1.1 - < 2  Probability is adjusted one level Final PoF Final Risk
2.0 - < 3  Probability is adjusted two levels
3.0 - < 4  Probability is adjusted three levels
>= 4  Probability is adjusted four levels

Final Inspection YES Risk

Acceptable?
Interval
NO
Offshore Rigid Pipeline Methodology Workshop Detailed
Assessment
 Semi-Quantitative Methodology
Offshore Rigid Pipeline Methodology Workshop

26
Example Damage Mechanism:

 Probability of Failure (PoF) – Fatigue/Overstress Susceptibility
Probability Factor (PF):
 Free span inspection Result (ROV/SSS)
 Last Free span Assessment report/study
Fatigue/Overstress Potential PFfatigue Category

No potential for buckling 10 Span < allowable length
Buckling possible, but unlikely 30 Span > allowable length & UC < 1
Unknown 70 No free span assessment performed
High buckling potential 90 Span fatigue life < design
 Likelihood of Failure (LoF) - Corrosion
Internal Corrosion
𝑀𝑎𝑥 ( 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒,𝐸𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 ) Measured
𝑵𝒐𝒓𝒎𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒛𝒆𝒅𝑪𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆= Corrosion Rate Yes

exists?
𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 No
External Corrosion
Calculated Yes Yes Measured

Corrosion Rate
Corrosion Rate
Probability Factor (PFNCR) from Normalized exists?
exists?
No
Corrosion Rate (NCR) No
Yes Estimated
Estimated Yes Corrosion Rate
Corrosion Rate
exists? exists?
Normalized Corrosion Rate (NCR) PFNCR No
No
0 ≤ NCR < 1 10 Theoretical Yes Yes Theoretical

Corrosion Rate Corrosion Rate
exists? exists?
1 ≤ NCR < 1.1 30 No
No
1.1 ≤ NCR < 1.5 50
Design Corrosion Rate Design Corrosion Rate
1.5 ≤ NCR < 2 70

2 ≤ NCR ≤ 100 90
Compare Internal and
External Corrosion Rates
Calculate the Normalized

Corrosion Rate

 Likelihood of Failure (LoF) – Sand Erosion
𝐸˙ 𝐿 =2.5 ∙10− 5 ∙ 𝑈 2.6 ∙ 𝑚

˙ 𝑝∙ 𝐷
−2
𝑵𝒐𝒓𝒎𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒛𝒆𝒅 𝑬𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆= 𝑆𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐸𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒

𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒
Probability (PFNER) Factor from Normalized Erosion Rate (NER
Normalized Erosion Rate (NER) PFNER
0 ≤ NER < 1 10
1 ≤ NER < 1.1 30
1.1 ≤ NER < 1.5 50
1.5 ≤ NER < 2 70
2 ≤ NER ≤ 100 90

 Probability Factor (PF) of Remaining Wall Thickness
Input Parameter:
Corrosion Allowance
 Maximum Internal Defect Depth (mm)
Max Defect Depth
 Maximum External Defect Depth (mm)
 Corrosion Allowance (mm) Calculate Wall Thickness Defect
Ratio
𝑻𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒌𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝑫𝒆𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐= 𝑀𝑎𝑥 ( 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡h , 𝐸𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡h )
𝑾𝒂𝒍𝒍 ×100
𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒
Wall Thickness Defect Ratio (WTDR) PFRWT
0 ≤ WTDR < 50 0
50 ≤ WTDR < 60 20
60 ≤ WTDR < 80 40
80 ≤ WTDR ≤ 100 60

 Probability Factor (PF) of Pipeline Age
Input Parameter:
 Pipeline Commissioning Date
 Design Life (years)
𝑷𝒊𝒑𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝑨𝒈𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐= 𝑃𝑖𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒 × 100

𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒
Pipeline Age Ratio (PAR) PFPA
0 ≤ PAR < 50 0
50 ≤ PAR < 60 20
60 ≤ PAR < 80 40
80 ≤ X ≤ 100 60

 Likelihood of Failure (LoF) – Coating and CP System
Probability Factor (PF):  Anode depletion
 CP system conditioncondition
 Coating
Anode Depletion Criteria PFCoating
Anode depleted < 25% 0

Anode depleted 25% - 50% 0
Anode depleted 50% - 75% -20
Anode depleted > 75% -30
CP System Criteria PFCP

No CP System Installed 0
Under protection (CP reading more +ve than -800mV w.r.t Ag/AgCl) -10
Over protection (CP reading more -ve than -1150mV w.r.t Ag/AgCl) -10
Providing adequate protection (CP reading between -800mv to -1150mV w.r.t Ag/AgCl) -40
Coating Condition Coating Condition Criteria PFCoating

Deteriorating Coating is failing to provide protection and promoting corrosion 0
Absent No coating present 0
Poor A coating in place but not suitable for long term service in the environment -20
Fair Adequate coating, not specifically designed for environment -30
Good High quality and designed for the environment -40

 Likelihood of Failure (LoF) – Fatigue/Overstress Susceptibility
 Free span Assessment Result (Rectification)
 Last Free span Assessment Date
Buckling Potential PFBuckling Category
No potential for buckling 10 Span < allowable length
Buckling possible, but unlikely 40 Span > allowable length & UC < 1
Unknown 50 No free span assessment performed
High buckling potential 70 Span fatigue life < design
Buckling evident 90 Buckling visually appeared

 Likelihood of Failure (LoF) – Mothballed
 Is the Pipeline Mothballed?
 Mothballing Procedure
Mothballing Procedure PFMothballed

Mothballed to MEPN’ SOP and process went to procedure 30
Pipeline content treated but not to MEPN’ SOP and process considered effective 50
Pipeline content untreated well effluent 70
Pipeline content untreated seawater 90
Unknown 90

 Likelihood of Failure (LoF) – Marine Growth
Criteria
Marine Growth < design growth, AND age < design life Remote
Marine Growth > design growth, AND age < design life Possible
Marine Growth < design growth, AND age > design life Likely
Marine Growth > design growth, AND age > design life Almost Certain

 Likelihood of Failure (LoF) – Operational Issue
Pipelines are designed to meet specific minimum or maximum operating conditions, such as pressure,
temperature, flow conditions, flow compositions, and inhibitor or chemical injection.
The Operational Issue is defined as the problem or issue that may arise from the operation of
pipeline outside of its design parameters, which is one of the factors affecting the PoF of pipeline.
The probability of the pipeline operating outside its design parameters, thereby causing a problem
during the pipeline life, will determine the probability factor from the Operational Issue
Operational Issue PFOpeIssue

No 10
Unlikely to cause a problem in the life of the pipeline 30
Unlikely to cause a problem in the life of the pipeline but probable 50
Unknown 50
Likely to cause a problem in the life of the pipeline 70
Likely to cause a problem in the next year 90

 Likelihood of Failure (LoF) – Pipeline Crossing
𝑷𝑭 𝑷𝑳. 𝑪𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈=PF Condition + PF Confidence + PF Number + PF Buried + PF Monitor
Crossing Condition PFCondition

Pipeline Crossing Condition is UNKNOWN 0
Pipeline Crossing Condition is UNACCEPTABLE 0
Pipeline Crossing Condition is ACCEPTABLE, with known anomalies -20
Pipeline Crossing Condition is GOOD as new -30
Crossing Confidence PFConfidence

No currently known issues that might impact upon pipeline integrity 10
Potential pipeline integrity issues, but unlikely to cause a problem in the life of the pipeline 30
Current pipeline integrity issues that could cause a problem in the life of the pipeline 50
Current pipeline integrity issues that are likely to cause a problem in the life of the pipeline 70
Current pipeline integrity issues that are likely to cause a problem in the next year 90
Number of Pipeline Crossing Over? PFNumber Pipeline Crossing Buried Position? PFBuried
0 10 Yes -30
1 15 No 0
2 20
3 (unlikely to have issues) 25 Routine Pipeline Crossing Monitor? PFMonitor
≥4 (likely to have issues) 30 Yes -10
No 0

 Likelihood of Failure (LoF) – Pipeline Crossing
𝑷𝑭 𝑰𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒕 = 𝑃𝐹 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐h𝑒𝑑 + 𝑃𝐹 𝐵𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑑 + 𝑃𝐹 𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 + 𝑃𝐹 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 + 𝑃𝐹 𝐷𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒
Trenched Pipeline PFTrenched Buried Pipeline PFBuried

Yes -30 Yes -30
No 0 No 0
Utilization of Mattresses PFMattresses

Yes -10
No 0
Patrol Effectiveness PFEffectiveness

No scheduled patrol 0
Low 0
Medium -5
High -10
Probability of Damage PFDamage

Occurred to other operators worldwide. 10
Occurred to other operators in Indonesia region in last 10 years. 30
Occurred to other operators in Indonesia Operation in last 5 years. 50
Occurred to MEPN in last 5 years. 70
Occurred to MEPN in last year. 90

 Likelihood of Failure (LoF) – External Debris
𝑷𝑭 𝑬𝒙𝒕 . 𝑫𝒆𝒃𝒓𝒊𝒔= max [ ( 70+ PF Buried + PF Coated ) ¿ , 0 ] ¿

PFBuried PFCoated
Concrete Coated
Buried Pipeline
Non-Metallic Debris Metallic Debris Pipeline Non-Metallic Debris Metallic Debris
Yes -60 -60 Yes -40 -10

No -20 0 No -10 0
 Likelihood of Failure (LoF) – Repair History

Type of Repair Repair Criteria PFRepair
No repair No repair (as designed) 10
Recoat, grind repair Minor repair 50
Mechanical leak clamp Medium repair 70
Replacement, pressurized sleeve, reinforcing sleeve, composite sleeve, epoxy

Major repair 90
filled sleeve, mechanical sleeve

 Consequence of Failure (CoF)
Consequence Factor
Financial (USD) Total Financial Impact
Product Category
People / Safety
Platform Type
Product Category
Environmental
Pipeline Diameter
(Bbls.eqv)
Volume of Spilled Product
Stakeholder
Reputation Media
Regulatory
𝑪𝒐𝑭 𝑷𝒊𝒑𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒆 =𝑚𝑎𝑥 ( 𝐶𝑜𝐹 𝐹𝑖𝑛 ,𝐶𝑜𝐹 𝑆𝑎𝑓 , 𝐶𝑜𝐹 𝐸𝑛𝑣 , 𝐶𝑜𝐹 𝑅𝑒𝑝 )

 CoF – Financial Factor
 The financial consequence model determines the financial consequence from loss of production and the cost of
repair.
 It takes into account the percentage of lost product (not diverted) from a line and the type of repair necessary to
bring it back online.
 The model shows the following major outputs:
- Cost of Lost Production (US$/day)
- Total Financial Impact (US$)
- Overall Financial Impact (Slight – Major)
 The Financial Consequence of Failure is calculated based on following input values:
- Oil/Condensate Flow Rate (barrel/day)
- Gas Flow Rate (MMscfd)
- Lost Production – Pipeline (%)
- Estimated Daily Oil/Condensate (barrel/day) and Gas Production Rate (MMscfd)
- Repair Type and Cost (US$)
- Lost Production Time (days)
- Other Impact Cost (US$)
- Insurance Coverage (US$ or %) [TBA]
- Total Financial Impact (US$)

𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝑳𝒐𝒔𝒕 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏(𝑼𝑺$/𝒅𝒂𝒚)=(𝑂𝑖𝑙 𝑜𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 (𝑈𝑆𝐷)× 𝑃𝑖𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑂𝑖𝑙 𝑜𝑟𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑(𝑏𝑎𝑟 𝑒𝑙)×% 𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑)+(𝐺𝑎𝑠𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 (𝑈𝑆𝐷)× 𝑃𝑖𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝐺𝑎𝑠 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑(𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑐𝑓𝑑)×% 𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑)

Repair Cost (US$) Lost Production Time (days)
Minor 150,000 10
Typical riser 300,000 15
Typical offshore 1,000,000 25
Offshore major 1,500,000 45
Pipeline and facilities 5,000,000 95
𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍𝑭𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒍𝑰𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒕 (𝑼𝑺$𝑴 )={𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑 (𝑈𝑆$/𝑑) × 𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 (𝑑 )}+𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 (𝑈𝑆$ )+𝑂𝑡h𝑒𝑟𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 (𝑈𝑆$ )− 𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝐶𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒(𝑈𝑆$)

Total Financial Impact (US$) CoFFin

Less than $20M Slight
$20M to less than $100M Minor
$100M to less than $300M Moderate
$300M to less than $500M Serious
More than $500M Major

 CoF – Safety Factor
 The safety consequence model is established according to DNV-RP-F116.
 Safety CoF is mainly determined by:
- Offshore pipeline’s product category
- Platform type (manned, unmanned, and occasionally manned)
Safety Consequence (CoFSaf)

Product
Manned Occasionally Manned Unmanned
Gas, Well Fluid Major Serious Minor

Gas, Semi-Processed Major Moderate Slight
Gas, Dry Major Moderate Slight
Oil, Well Fluid Serious Moderate Minor
Oil, Semi-Processed Moderate Minor Slight
Oil, Dry Moderate Minor Slight
Condensate, Well Fluid Major Serious Minor
Condensate, Semi-Processed Major Moderate Slight
Condensate, Dry Major Moderate Slight
Treated Seawater Minor Slight Slight
Raw Seawater Minor Slight Slight
Produced Water Minor Slight Slight

 The safety consequence model is established according to DNV-RP-F116.
 Safety CoF is mainly determined by:
- Offshore pipeline’s product category
- Platform type (manned, unmanned, and occasionally manned)
- the safety consequence model for pipeline location in Zone 2 (50m – 500m from platform) use
level 2 approach in which the value of safety CoF is mainly determined by safety class according to
design (aggregated personnel, environmental and economic),
- while for pipeline location in Zone 3 (more than 500m from platform) use level 1 approach based
on the offshore pipeline’s product category and platform’s occupancy level, such as manned,
unmanned, and occasionally manned
Offshore location class Description

1 The area where no frequent human activity is anticipated along the pipeline
route
2 The part of the pipeline/riser in the near platform (manned) area or in area with
frequent human activity. The extent of location class 2 should be based on
appropriate risk analysis. If no such analysis are performed a minimum distance
of 500 m should be adopted.

Safety CoF Modelling Level-2 Approach
Fluid type
Oil (B) Gas (D, E) Other (A, C)
Location class
Leak Burst Leak Burst Leak
Burst
Offshore location class 1 M L
Offshore location class 2 H M / H*

 Offshore Facilities Zoning Area
• Final Adjusted Safety Consequence of Failure Model (CoFFinSaf)
Zone Radius Area CoFFinSaf
Zone 1 R < 50 m CoFSaf adjusted 1 level up

Zone 2 50 m ≤ R ≤ 500 m No adjustment
Refer to Process Safety Indicator
Zone 3 R > 500 m
Pyramid based on API RP 754

 CoF – Environmental Factor
Gas or Water
 The product types of gas or water are modelled according to DNV-RP-F116 where the environmental
CoF is measured based on the throughput, which is directly linked to the pipeline diameter (D).
Environmental Consequence (CoFGW)

Product
D ≤ 8” D > 8” D > 16” D > 32”
Gas, Well Fluid Minor Minor Minor Moderate
Gas, Semi-Processed Slight Slight Slight Minor
Gas, Dry Slight Slight Slight Minor
Treated Seawater Slight Slight Slight Slight
Raw Seawater Slight Slight Slight Slight
Produced Water Minor Minor Minor Moderate
Oil or Condensate
 The environmental CoF is measured based on the estimated volume of spilled product.
 Two types of damages (leak & burst) are considered in measuring the volume of spilled product.
 Leak CoF model is calculated based on API RP 581, the hole sizes are categorized into small (1/4”), medium
(1”), and large holes (4”)

𝑽𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒎𝒆 𝑳𝒆𝒂𝒌 =3.6 × t Shutdown × FR Leak
4
𝑭𝑹 𝑳𝒆𝒂𝒌 =2.26 ∙ 10 × Velocity Fluid × Area Hole
Where,
VolumeLeak : estimated volume of spilled product for each hole size (barrel),
tShutdown : time to shutdown (hour),
FRLeak : flow rate through the leak for each hole size (barrel per hour), where 2.26∙104 is the number used to
convert the flow rate from m3/s into barrel/hour,
VelocityFluid : fluid velocity through the pipeline (m/s),
AreaHole : area for each hole size (m2).
 For the burst CoF model, it is assumed that when the pipeline has failed in a burst or rupture manner, the whole product
contained in the pipeline will be spilled to the environment. Thus, the estimated volume of spilled product for burst CoF
can be expressed as:
2
𝑽𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒎𝒆 𝑩𝒖𝒓𝒔𝒕 =6.29 × L × π D
4
Where,
VolumeBurst : estimated volume of spilled product for burst or rupture (barrel), where 6.29 is the number used to convert the
volume from m3 into barrel,
L : length of pipeline (m),
D : diameter of pipeline (m).

3

𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑽𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒎𝒆 ( 𝑩𝒂𝒓𝒓𝒆𝒍)=
(∑𝑛=1
)
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑛 ×𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝐿𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝑛 + ( 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 4 ×𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 4 )
 The Distribution in the aforementioned equation is the

n Hole Size Offshore Pipeline
recommended Hole Size Distributions, (Ref. International
1 Small (1/4”) 74%
Association of Oil & Gas Producers’ Risk Assessment Data Directory).
2 Medium (1”) 16%
 The Total Volume of spilled product is then converted into PONSBV
3 Large (4”) 2%
environmental CoF according to below table.
4 Rupture/Burst 8%
Environmental Impact Factor CoFEnv Score

Species/habitats encounter short-term and reversible impact, recovery < 1 month. Slight Effect 1
Species/habitats encounter short-term and reversible impact, recovery < 6 month.
1 - 15 bbl spill to water. Minor Effect 2
Species/habitats encounter temporary but reversible impact.
< 0.2 ha contaminated coastal area with recovery < 1 year. Moderate Effect 3
15 - 75 bbl spill to water.
Serious impact to species/habitats that will require extensive measures.
0.2-2 ha contaminated coastal area with recovery 1-3 year.
10-100 ha contaminated open sea with recovery in < 1 years. Serious Effect 4
75 - 750 bbl crude oil spilled to water.
Uncontrolled release of any material with the potential to cause extensive long term or permanent damage.
> 2 ha contaminated coastal area with recovery > 3 years.
> 750 bbl crude oil spilled to water. Major Effect 5

 CoF – Reputation Consequence
The
reputation CoF () is quantitatively calculated based on the impact of failure on the reputation of PONSBV
risk matrix;
Stakeholder Media Regulatory CoFREP Score

Local public awareness but no discernible No media coverage Request for clarification from authorities.
concern Warning/informative discussions Slight Effect 1
Local public concern Local media coverage Minor regulatory non-conformance.
Potential/threat for further regulatory Minor Effect 2
action
Regional public concern Extensive attention in Regulatory improvement notice. Remedial
Local stakeholders, e.g. community, NGO, local media. Some action with timeline to complete. Moderate
industry & government are aware regional or national 3
Potential/threat for prosecution. Effect
media coverage.
National public concern Extensive attention in Regulatory action leading to restriction on
Impact on local & national stakeholder relations. national media, some some operations.
National government and NGO involvement with international coverage.
potential for international NGO action Serious Effect 4
Likely of escalate & affect group reputation
International public concern International media Significant potential for effect on national
High level of concern amongst government & attention or international operation with impact on
action by international NGOs access to new areas, grants of licenses Major Effect 5
and/or tax legislation.

 Optimum (Initial) Risk
 Generally, risk is the combination of the probability of some events occurring during a time period of
interest and the consequences associated with the event.
𝑶𝒑𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒖𝒎 𝑷𝒊𝒑𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝑹𝒊𝒔𝒌 = 𝑃𝑜𝐹 𝑃𝑖𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 × 𝐶𝑜𝐹 𝑃𝑖𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒

 Optimum Risk is a level of risk calculated based on the current knowledge and condition of the pipeline
without taking into account the time when the last inspection was performed.
 Optimum Risk will be used together with the Confidence Factor to generate the Optimum Inspection
Interval.
 Time Since Last Inspection is an interval of time (in years) between the last inspection date and today, is
then divided by the Optimum Inspection Interval to obtain the Inspection Interval Ratio.
 Inspection Interval Ratio is used to adjust the PoF resulting in the Final or Adjusted Risk..

 Confidence Factors
 A confidence factor is used to indicate the confidence in the initial controls and how they may impact
upon the integrity.
 Each contributing factor above is defined in 5 levels of confidence:
- Very Low
- Low
- Medium
- High
- Very High
 The level of confidence from each main contributing factor will be compared and the
lowest level of confidence will be used as the confidence factor
𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒇𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆
𝑭𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓=𝑚𝑖𝑛 ( 𝐶𝐿 𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘 , 𝐶𝐿 𝑅𝐿 , 𝐶𝐿 𝐹𝐹𝑆 )
𝑪𝑳 𝑹𝒊𝒔𝒌 =𝑚𝑖𝑛 ( 𝐶𝐿 𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟 ,𝐶𝐿 𝑈𝑝𝑠 )

 Corrosion Mechanism Confidence
 The corrosion mechanism confidence takes into account the corrosion type and the degree to which it
could potentially get out of control.
 The values of confidence weighting from all corrosion mechanisms activated for an offshore pipeline will
be compared.
 The lowest weighting value and its confidence level will be used as the Corrosion Mechanism
Confidence (CLCorr).
Corrosion Mechanism CLCorr

No Corrosion Expected Very High
General Corrosion High
Weld Corrosion Medium
Pitting Corrosion Medium
TOL Corrosion Medium
External Corrosion – Pipeline Medium
Sand Present Medium
Bacteria Corrosion Low
SCC Low
Sour Service Low

 Process Upset Confidence
 Level of Process Upset Confidence (CLUps) is mainly attributed to the number of upsets that occur
annually to the pipeline system.
Number of Upsets CLUps
No Process Upsets Identified Very High

1– 3 High
4–6 Medium
7 – 10 Low
>10 Very Low

 Remnant Life Confidence
 The Remnant Life Confidence is determined based on the percentage of used pipeline (% Life
Used ). The Remnant Life is calculated based on the worst case anomaly.
% 𝑳𝒊𝒇𝒆 𝑼𝒔𝒆𝒅 = 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒 − 𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒 × 100

𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒
𝑹𝒆𝒎𝒏𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝑳𝒊𝒇𝒆 = 𝑀𝑎𝑥 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑊𝑇 − 𝑇𝑆𝐿𝐼

𝐶𝑅
𝑴𝒂𝒙
𝑨𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝑪𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒅𝒆𝒅 𝑾𝑻 =𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑊𝑇 − 𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑊𝑇
𝑹𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈
𝑾𝑻 =𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑊𝑇 −𝑚𝑎𝑥 ( 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡h , 𝐸𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡h )
𝑴𝒊𝒏
𝑨𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝑶𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑾𝑻 =𝑊𝑇 − 𝑀𝑎𝑥 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡h
𝑻𝑺𝑳𝑰 = Today ′ s Date − Last Inspection Date
365
 The Remnant Life and Time Since Last Inspection (TSLI) are defined in years, while Max
Allowable Corroded WT, Remaining WT, and Min Allowable Operating WT are defined in mm.
The Max Allowable Defect Depth is calculated according to ASME B31.G or DNV-RP-F101.

 The Corrosion Rate (CR) used in the Remnant Life equation is obtained Measured
Corrosion Rate
Yes
by comparing the internal and external corrosion rates. exists?
No
 The values of internal and external corrosion rates are compared and
Calculated Yes
the more severe corrosion rate is used as the main corrosion rate in Corrosion Rate
exists?
calculating the Remnant Life. The level of Remnant Life Confidence for
a given number of % Life Used is provided in below table. No
Estimated
Corrosion Rate
Yes
exists?
No
% Life Used CLRL Theoretical Yes

Corrosion Rate
70 ≤ % Life ≤ 100 Very Low exists?
60 ≤ % Life < 70 Low No
50 ≤ % Life < 60 Medium Design Corrosion Rate
30 ≤ % Life <50 High

0 ≤ % Life <30 Very High
Internal Corrosion Rates

 Fitness For Service Confidence
 The current FFS confidence is an overall assessment made by the pipeline or integrity engineer
based on the knowledge of the pipeline, its current corrosion condition and taking into account
also any current or future issues, which are not captured in pipeline threats.
 The level of overall FFS Confidence (CLFFS) is qualitatively determined by selecting the appropriate
pre-determined FFS statement.
Fitness for Service Statement CLFFS
No currently known issues that might impact the pipeline integrity Very High
Potential pipeline integrity issues, but unlikely to cause a problem in the life of the pipeline High
Current pipeline integrity issues that could cause a problem in the life of the pipeline Medium
Current pipeline integrity issues that are likely to cause a problem in the life of the pipeline Low
Current pipeline integrity issues that are likely to cause a problem in the next year Very Low

 After the risk assessment process is completed, the results must be turned into measures to reduce or
maintain the perceived risks.
 The most common measure is inspection, and this section details the planning of inspections. An
inspection plan will include the following items:
- What to inspect for (contributing factors),
- When to inspect (schedule),
- Where to inspect (section),
- Who and How to inspect (inspection method selection).

 The primary output of the risk assessment process is a list of threats that the pipeline is, or may be,
susceptible to and the level of risk associated with each threat.
Threat Contributing Factor Inspection or Mitigation Type

Internal Corrosion IP (Intelligent Pigging)
Corrosion
External Corrosion ROV
Coating and CP System Coating, Anode Depletion and CP Condition ROV
Free Spanning Potential ROV, SSS, Rectification
Fatigue/Overstress
Buckling Potential ROV, SSS
Mothballed Mothballing Procedure Procedure
Pipeline Crossing Condition ROV
Pipeline Crossing Confidence Pipeline FFP/FFS
Pipeline Crossing Number of Pipeline Crossing Over Pipeline Design
Buried Position ROV
Crossing Monitor ROV, SSS
Operational Issues Operation Outside Design Parameters Pipeline FFP/FFS
Pipeline Route Patrol Vessel Patrol
Patrol Effectiveness Vessel Patrol
Probability of Damage Pipeline History
Impact Damage
Trenched Pipeline Pipeline Design
Buried Pipeline Pipeline Design
Utilization of Mattresses Pipeline Design
Buried Pipeline (as Designed) Pipeline Design
External Debris Concrete Coated Pipeline ROV
Type of Debris ROV

Optimum Inspection Intervals
The inspection rationale encompasses the following approaches:
 Prescriptive
 Risk-based
 Trigger-based
 For RBI, the results from inspection are used to determine the optimum interval of time for the next
inspection.
 The objective is to move the process of pipeline inspection planning from the one based on prescriptive
intervals of inspection to risk-based and trigger-based planning/scheduling.
 For all inspection techniques, the inspection interval is determined based on the shorter interval of time
between the prescriptive inspection interval and the RBI interval.
 The example of prescriptive inspection interval is given in below table, in which the inspection interval is
flexible and might be changed according to PONSBV’s integrity management strategy.
Inspection Interval (Years)
Inspection Type
Minimum Nominal / Prescriptive Maximum
OFFSHORE RIGID PIPELINE
Intelligent Pigging 1 5 10*
ROV and CP Surveys 1 3 5

Side-Scan Sonar 1 3** 5**

The
RBI interval is calculated by multiplying the Confidence Factor with the Optimum Risk, which is a
combination of PoF and CoF.
Inspection Interval (years) Matrix – Intelligent Pigging Survey
Confidence Factor
Risk
Very Low Low Medium High Very High
High Risk 1 2 3 4 5
Medium Risk 3 4 5 6 7
Low Risk 5 6 7 9 10
Inspection Interval (years) Matrix – ROV Survey / Side Scan Sonar and CP Survey
Confidence Factor
Risk
Very Low Low Medium High Very High
High Risk 1 1 1.5 2 2.5
Medium RIsk 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Low Risk 2.5 3 3.5 4.5 5*

61

Software Tools:
62

Software Tools:
RBI 2018 WNTS Zone 1
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3
KP 0-0.02 KP 0.01-0.02 KP 0.02-9
Current Risk Medium-8 Medium-9 Low-3
Projected Unmitigated Risk High-12 High-12 Medium-6
Projected Mitigated Risk Medium-8 Medium-6 Low-3
Next Visual and UT measurement 8/13/2018 N/A N/A
Next ROV/SSS & CP survey recommendation N/A 8/13/2018 N/A
Governing inspection method N/A N/A SSS
Inspection Interval for governing insp. method N/A 2.5 3.5
Latest ROV/SSS survey N/A N/A 8/7/2015
Adjusted LoF due to governing insp. Method 2 2 2
Initial LoF 2 2 2
All Damage Coating and CP Coating and CP
LoF driver factor
Mechanism System System
CoF 3 3 3
CoF driver factor Environtment Environtment Environtment
RBI Update 2018 WNTS Pipelines – Presentation Result

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Section 9 Section 10 Section 11 Section 12 Section 13 Section 14
KP 9.125-24 KP 24-29 KP 29-39 KP 39-49 KP 49-59 KP 59-69 KP 69-79 KP 79-89 KP 89-99 KP 99-109 KP 109-119 KP 119-129 KP 129-139 KP 139-148
Current Risk Low-3 Medium-6 Medium-6 Medium-6 Medium-6 Medium-6 Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3
Projected Unmitigated Risk Medium-6 Medium-9 Medium-9 Medium-9 Medium-9 Medium-9 Low-3 Medium-9 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3
Projected Mitigated Risk Low-3 Medium-6 Medium-6 Medium-6 Medium-6 Medium-6 Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3
Next Visual and UT measurement N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Next ROV/SSS & CP survey recom. 2/4/2019 3/18/2020 9/17/2020 9/17/2020 9/17/2020 9/17/2020 3/18/2022 9/17/2020 2/4/2020 2/4/2020 2/4/2020 2/4/2020 2/4/2020 2/4/2020
Governing inspection method SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS ROV ROV ROV ROV ROV ROV
Insp. Interval for gov. insp. method 3.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.5 3.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Latest ROV/SSS survey 8/7/2015 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017
Adjusted LoF due to gov. insp. Method 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Initial LoF 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Coating and Coating and External Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/
LoF driver factor
CP System CP System Debris Overstress Overstress Overstress Overstress Overstress Overstress Overstress Overstress Overstress Overstress Overstress
CoF 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
CoF driver factor Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Section 9 Section 10 Section 11 Section 12 Section 13 Section 14 Section 15 Section 16
KP 148-158 KP 158-168 KP 168-178 KP 178-188 KP 188-198 KP 198-208 KP 208-218 KP 218-228 KP 228-238 KP 238-248 KP 248-258 KP 258-268 KP 268-278 KP 278-288 KP 288-298 KP 298-308
Current Risk Medium-6 Medium-6 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3
Projected Unmitigated Risk Medium-9 Medium-9 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Medium-9 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3
Projected Mitigated Risk Medium-6 Medium-6 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3
Next Visual and UT measurement N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Next ROV/SSS & CP survey recom. 11/30/2020 11/30/2020 11/29/2025 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 11/30/2020 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 4/25/2020
Governing inspection method ROV ROV ROV ROV ROV ROV ROV ROV ROV ROV ROV ROV ROV ROV ROV SSS
Insp. Interval for gov. insp. method 3.0 3.0 8.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Latest ROV/SSS survey 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 9/18/2017
Adjusted LoF due to gov. insp. Method 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Initial LoF 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
External External Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ External Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/
LoF driver factor
Debris Debris Overstress Overstress Overstress Overstress Overstress Overstress Debris Overstress Overstress Overstress Overstress Overstress Overstress Overstress
CoF 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
CoF driver factor Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

Section 17 Section 18 Section 19 Section 20 Section 21 Section 22 Section 23 Section 24 Section 25 Section 26 Section 27 Section 28 Section 29 Section 30 Section 31 Section 32 Section 33
KP 308-318 KP 318-328 KP 328-338 KP 338-348 KP 348-358 KP 358-368 KP 368-378 KP 378-388 KP 388-398 KP 398-408 KP 408-418 KP 418-428 KP 428-438 KP 438-448 KP 448-458 KP 458-468 KP 468-471
Current Risk Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Medium-6 Medium-6 Medium-6 Medium-6 Medium-6 Medium-6 Low-3 Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3
Projected Unmitigated Risk Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Medium-9 Medium-9 Medium-9 Medium-9 Medium-9 Medium-9 Low-3 Low-3 Medium-9 Low-3 Medium-9 Low-3
Projected Mitigated Risk Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Medium-6 Medium-6 Medium-6 Medium-6 Medium-6 Medium-6 Low-3 Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3
Next Visual and UT measurement N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Next ROV/SSS & CP survey recom. 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 11/30/2020 10/25/2018 10/25/2018 10/25/2018 10/25/2018 10/25/2018 4/24/2020 4/24/2020 10/25/2018 4/24/2020 11/30/2020 5/31/2022
Governing inspection method ROV ROV ROV ROV ROV ROV SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS ROV ROV
Insp. Interval for gov. insp. method 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.5 4.5 3.0 4.5 3.0 4.5
Latest ROV/SSS survey 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017
Adjusted LoF due to gov. insp. Method 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1
Initial LoF 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1
Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ External External External External External External External Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ External Fatigue/
LoF driver factor
Overstress Overstress Overstress Overstress Debris Debris Debris Debris Debris Debris Debris Overstress Overstress Overstress Overstress Debris Overstress
CoF 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
CoF driver factor Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Section 9
KP 30-40 KP 40-50 KP 50-60 KP 60-70 KP 70-80 KP 80-90 KP 90-100 KP 100-110 KP 110-124
Current Risk Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3 Low-3 Medium-6
Projected Unmitigated Risk Low-3 Medium-9 Low-3 Medium-9 Low-3 Medium-9 Low-3 Low-3 Medium-9
Projected Mitigated Risk Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3 Low-3 Medium-6
Next Visual and UT measurement N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Next ROV/SSS & CP survey recom. 3/18/2022 9/17/2020 3/18/2022 9/17/2020 3/18/2022 9/17/2020 3/18/2022 3/18/2022 9/17/2020
Governing inspection method SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS
Insp. Interval for gov. insp. method 4.5 3.0 4.5 3.0 4.5 3.0 4.5 4.5 3.0
Latest ROV/SSS survey 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017
Adjusted LoF due to gov. insp. Method 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2
Initial LoF 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2
Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/
LoF driver factor External Debris External Debris External Debris External Debris
Overstress Overstress Overstress Overstress Overstress
CoF 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
CoF driver factor Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7
KP 0-5 KP 5-10 KP 10-15 KP 15-20 20-25 KP 25-30 KP 30-35
Current Risk Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Medium-6 Medium-9
Projected Unmitigated Risk Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Medium-9 High-12
Projected Mitigated Risk Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Low-3 Medium-6 Medium-6
Next Visual and UT measurement N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Next ROV/SSS & CP survey recom. 3/18/2022 3/18/2022 3/18/2022 3/18/2022 3/18/2022 9/17/2020 9/17/2020
Governing inspection method SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS
Insp. Interval for gov. insp. method 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0
Latest ROV/SSS survey 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017
Adjusted LoF due to gov. insp. Method 1 1 1 1 1 2 3
Initial LoF 1 1 1 1 1 2 3
Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/
LoF driver factor External Debris External Debris Repair History
Overstress Overstress Overstress Overstress
CoF 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
CoF driver factor Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

RBI 2018 Lateral KAKAP
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7
KP 0-7 KP 7-14 KP 14-21 KP 21-28 KP 28-35 KP 35-42 KP 42-49
Current Risk Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3 Medium-6 Medium-9
Projected Unmitigated Risk Low-3 Medium-9 Low-3 Medium-9 Low-3 Medium-9 High-12
Projected Mitigated Risk Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3 Medium-6 Medium-6
Next Visual and UT measurement N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Next ROV/SSS & CP survey recom. 1/5/2020 7/7/2018 1/5/2020 7/7/2018 1/5/2020 7/7/2018 7/7/2017
Governing inspection method ROV ROV ROV ROV ROV ROV ROV
Insp. Interval for gov. insp. method 4.5 3.0 4.5 3.0 4.5 3.0 3.0
Latest ROV/SSS survey 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017
Adjusted LoF due to gov. insp. Method 1 2 1 2 1 2 3
Initial LoF 1 2 1 2 1 2 3
Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/
LoF driver factor External Debris External Debris External Debris Repair History
Overstress Overstress Overstress
CoF 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
CoF driver factor Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

RBI 2018 Lateral MOGPU
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4
KP 0-3 KP 3-6 KP 6-9 KP 9-12
Current Risk Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3 Low-3
Projected Unmitigated Risk Low-3 Medium-9 Low-3 Low-3
Projected Mitigated Risk Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3 Low-3
Next Visual and UT measurement N/A N/A N/A N/A
Next ROV/SSS & CP survey recom. 2/4/2020 8/6/2018 2/4/2020 2/4/2020
Governing inspection method ROV ROV ROV ROV
Insp. Interval for gov. insp. method 4.5 3.0 4.5 4.5
Latest ROV/SSS survey 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 12/1/2017
Adjusted LoF due to gov. insp. Method 1 2 1 1
Initial LoF 1 2 1 1
Fatigue/ Fatigue/ Fatigue/
LoF driver factor External Debris
Overstress Overstress Overstress
CoF 3 3 3 3
CoF driver factor Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

RBI 2018 Lateral GAJAH BARU
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3
KP 0-1 KP 1-2 KP 2-2.6
Current Risk Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3
Projected Unmitigated Risk Low-3 Medium-9 Low-3
Projected Mitigated Risk Low-3 Medium-6 Low-3
Next Visual and UT measurement N/A N/A N/A
Next ROV/SSS & CP survey recom. 9/17/2022 3/18/2021 9/17/2022
Governing inspection method SSS SSS SSS
Insp. Interval for gov. insp. method 5.0 3.5 5.0
Latest ROV/SSS survey 9/18/2017 9/18/2017 9/18/2017
Adjusted LoF due to gov. insp. Method 1 2 1
Initial LoF 1 2 1
Fatigue/ Fatigue/
LoF driver factor External Debris
Overstress Overstress
CoF 3 3 3
CoF driver factor Reputation Reputation Reputation

Pipeline RBI R0a.hadi (October)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Pipeline RBI R0a.hadi (October)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Pipeline Risk Based

RBI is used to identify and

RBI is used to prioritize inspection

RBI is used to optimize an inspection

RBI is risk based approach for

01 INTRODUCTION RBI PIPELINE

02 RBI PIPELINE METHODOLOGY

Introduction RBI Pipeline

Introduction RBI Pipeline

12 24" Gas FPSO Bow 24 Gas FPSO ADGF PLEM 93.4

Introduction RBI Pipeline

1 Belida Gas 12” Gas DPPA to MOGPU 1999 32.4

Background of RBI Pipeline

Historical Background of RBI Pipeline

STARTING TIME-BASED TRANSITION IMPLEMENTATION

2006 - 2008 2014 2017 - 2018 2020

• Time-based • Time-based • Permen 18 tahun • Full implement

RBI Pipeline Methodology

RISK = POF x COF

POF : Probability of Failure

COF : Consequence of Failure

RBI Pipeline Methodology

Probability of Failure (PoF) Determination:

RBI Pipeline Methodology

Consequence of Failure (CoF) Determination:

Slight environmental effects, * Impact observed within company, no media

Slill < 3 bbl

High Intolerable Risk

RBI Pipeline Result

Inspection Plan ROV/SSS : 2.5 year

ROV/SSS : 4.5 year

RBI Pipeline Result

RBI Pipeline Result

16" Gas North Belut CPP to Kerisi PLEM 0% 100% 0% 0%

10" Cond. North Belut CPP to Kerisi PLEM 0% 0% 100% 0%

22" 3-Phase WHPC to North Belut CPP 0% 0% 100% 0%

14" South Belut Header to North Belut CPP 0% 100% 0% 0%

16" Oil Line1 MID PLEM-OOB OIL 0% 100% 0% 0%

16" Oil Line2 MID PLEM-OOB OIL 0% 100% 0% 0%

16" Fluid WHPA-MID PLEM Belanak 0% 100% 0% 0%

6" Gas Inject MID PLEM -WHPA 0% 100% 0% 0%

16" Fluid WHPB-BOW PLEM Belanak 0% 100% 0% 0%

6" Gas Inject MID PLEM -WHPB 0% 100% 0% 0%

RBI Pipeline Result

Pulau Sakra (KP 0+00) KP 9+140 28

IRM Campaign with ROV or SSS to monitoring:

 Free span intervention such as groutbag installation

ROV USD 1,864,500 - 1,655,500 - 1,864,500 - 1,655,500 - 1,864,500 8,904,500

SSS USD 401,835 - 452,565 - 401,835 - 452,565 - 401,835 2,110,635

ROV USD 1,864,500 - - 1,864,500 - 1,864,500 - - 1,864,500 7,458,000

SSS USD - 401,835 - 401,835 - - 401,835 - 401,835 1,607,340

 Potential Saving : USD 216,644 / year

Professional . Ethical . Open . Innovative

 Semi-Quantitative Methodology Time Dependent Threats

Inspection Interval Ratio

Final Inspection YES Risk

Offshore Rigid Pipeline Methodology Workshop

RBI Pipeline Methodology

Example Damage Mechanism:

Fatigue/Overstress Potential PFfatigue Category

𝑀𝑎𝑥 ( 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒,𝐸𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 ) Measured

𝑵𝒐𝒓𝒎𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒛𝒆𝒅𝑪𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆= Corrosion Rate Yes

Calculated Yes Yes Measured