Subsea Controls Integrity
14 May, 2014
Subsea Controls Integrity
14 May 2014 Aberdeen Evening Meeting
Chairman: Richard Ficken, Subsea and Pipelines Manager, Total E&P
Richard Ficken, Subsea and Pipelines Manager, Total E&P UK
The opening presentation will provide a very simple overview of the subsea control systems basics, main failure types and some distinct aspects of the subsea controls market. Resulting integrity and management strategies will also be discussed.
Obsolescence Theory and Integrity Implications
Andy Gower, Subsea Controls Engineer, Total E&P UK
The paper provides a recap of the relevant obsolescence definitions and theory applied to the integrity of subsea control systems. Implications are explored including consideration of the resulting mitigation strategies.
Subsea Control Failures and Remediation—Operational Experience
Rik Ingram, Deputy Manager, Subsea Operations and Equipment Group, Wood Group Kenny
Four case studies are presented representing some of the common operational failures experienced in subsea control systems. The four case studies are an example of IR dropping consistently, HPU control fluid contamination, potential DHSV failure and HPU loss of fluid. Each case study discusses diagnostics, potential operational implications and the proposed solutions.
Jeremy Edwards, Operations Manager, Viper Subsea Ltd
The Techbite slot is for new and innovative technologies to be presented. Viper Subsea Ltd will present the recent advances in LIMs remediation equipment.
David Hicks, Senior Product Manager, GE Oil and & Gas UK Ltd
When a subsea problem occurs, it has not been, historically, straightforward to diagnose or to address efficient maintenance. This can mean that unplanned interventions are required, with the serious cost impacts that these may entail. Due to these factors, delivering robust subsea facility health information is of increasing interest in the industry. Health data may be effectively acquired and analyzed, allowing operators to plan effective maintenance regimes and minimize downtime due to equipment failure. The types of instrumentation involved in system integrity monitoring also allow flow assurance measures to be implemented in order to mitigate disrupting factors such as hydrate or wax formation. Further, increasing levels of encrypted data may be transferred to operator or equipment vendor remote facilities, allowing additional expertise to be involved in objective decision-making on operational issues as they occur. A key challenge is to ensure that relevant data is intelligently processed and presented in order to facilitate such decision–making.