PETROBRAS AMAZÔNIA GAS: REPAIR
LOGISTICS EVALUATION STUDY
Denise Faertes (Petrobras)
Joaquim Domingues (DNV)
The purpose of this paper is to present the study concerning the evaluation
of the repair logistics of gas pipeline Urucu-Manaus (extension of 600
km), that was constructed to operate on Amazonia Brazilian region..
The repair logistic is a challenge, regarding specific operation conditions
in the jungle, environment and flood variations, difficulty on accessing
pipeline path of way, difficulty on transportation, etc.
Workshops were made, gathering most experienced company personnel
from different Petrobras sectors (engineering, operation, repair centre,
integrity area, Brazilian Army, offshore sector, etc.), in order to evaluate
and establish strategies for each identified failure scenario, considering
type of repair, logistics, resources and costs.
First step of the study was to incorporate the experience obtained from the
engineering team, responsible for the construction of Urucu-Coari-
Manaus gas pipeline as they had to face unexpected and adverse
conditions. Based on their, experience, different pipeline sections were
defined, considering specific features, like isolation, flooded areas, river
crossings, access limitations, etc. Second step was brain storming
workshops with the purpose of providing the best Petrobras evaluation of
pipeline sections repair strategies, logistics and resources. Failure
frequencies were raised and addressed, as well as variables like: - time for
failure detection, for digging, for repair, for resources arrival, considering
different logistics and transportation modals (using specific boats,
helicopters with special characteristics, such as suitable for long line
operations, capable of transporting heavy equipment, etc.). Innovative
ways of repair were conceived and proposed to be used.
Supply contract conditions for thermo plants, industrial and residential
consumers were considered. Finally, a cost benefit analysis was
performed, considering expenses on logistics and resources and benefits
associated with avoided losses for each specific failure scenario, in order
to provide support for decision making process.
Palavras-chaves: Repair Logistics.
5, 6 e 7 de Agosto de 2010 ISSN 1984-9354
VI CONGRESSO NACIONAL DE EXCELÊNCIA EM GESTÃO Energia, Inovação, Tecnologia e Complexidade para a Gestão Sustentável
Niterói, RJ, Brasil, 5, 6 e 7 de agosto de 2010
2
INTRODUCTION
PETROBRAS together with DNV has performed an analysis of different options, concerning
repair logistics to be adopted in the occurrence of unexpected failure scenarios on gas main
pipeline Urucu – Coari - Manaus.
This study was carried out considering loss of supply and risk expenditures associated with each
one of the options analyzed. Flood conditions, different probable failure scenarios, repair time and
repair modals, human and material resources were considered, as well as associated costs.
The evaluation was made taking into account comparative gains between options, associated to
repair time reductions and normal operation recovery time reductions, expressed in terms of risk
of gas supply shortfalls analyzed for each one of the options considered and compared with a basic
case scenario. The reliability analysis of the whole Amazonia gas supply chain is not being
performed in this study.
GAS SUPPLY SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
Gas supply system configuration is composed by pipeline Uucu- Coari Manaus that was conceived
to deliver gas to consumers in the city of Manaus and to seven (7) city-gates located along the
pipeline. Gas will be processed in the processing units, located at Urucu.
Figure 1 presents an overview of the pipeline. As shown in Figure 2, the pipeline is composed by
two sections – Urucu- Coari (GARSOL), 18”, 278.8km of extension, and Coari – Manaus
(GASCOM), 20”, 382.3km of extension.
Most of the pipeline extension goes through Amazônia forest, crossing rivers and ‘igarapés’,
providing gas to different regions of Amazonia state: - Coari, Codajás, Anori, Anamã,
Caapiranga, Manacapuru, Iranduba and Manaus.
Along the pipeline there are eight (8) pressure reduction stations and the following city-gates:
Coari, Codajás, Anori, Anamã, Caapiranga, Manacapuru, Iranduba, Aparecida, Mauá and Manaus
refinery (REMAN).
Aparecida city-gate supplies gas to Aparecida thermo plant with a pressure of 48kgf/cm2 and to a
gas distribution company (CIGAS) with 17kgf/cm2.
As shown in Figure 2, along Urucu- Manaus gas pipeline, there are eight (8) pressure reduction
stations (ERPs), city gates (PEs) and their associated distribution branches:
ERP Coari (20.2km of 4”) up to PE Coari;
ERP Codajás (25.4km of 3”) up to PE Codajás;
VI CONGRESSO NACIONAL DE EXCELÊNCIA EM GESTÃO Energia, Inovação, Tecnologia e Complexidade para a Gestão Sustentável
Niterói, RJ, Brasil, 5, 6 e 7 de agosto de 2010
3
ERP Anori (27.5 km of 3”) up to PE Anori;
ERP Anamã (23.7km of 3”) up to PE Anamã;
ERP Caapiranga (6.9km of 3”) up to PE Caapiranga;
ERP Manacapuru (7.0km of 3”) up to PE Manacapuru;
ERP Iranduba - branch (12.4km of 3”) up to PE Iranduba - branch (12.3km of 14”) up
to PE Aparecida;
ERP Manaus – city-gate REMAN- branch (3.7km, of 14”) up to PE Mauá.
There will be three operational stages for the pipeline, as shown in Figure 2. During the first one,
from October 2009, the pipeline is supposed to deliver 4,600Mm3/d, @ 9400kcal/m
3, with a
pressure of 87.7kgf/cm2 of dry gas from Urucu, only using the compression system located in
Urucu.
During the second stage, from October 2010, gas volume to be delivered will increase to
6.000Mm3/d @ 9400kcal/m
3, with a pressure of 120kgf/cm
2, when it will be necessary to put into
operation compression stations, located at Juaruna (km 152) and at Coari (km 279). During the
third stage, gas flow would increase to approximately 8,925Mm3/d @9400kcal/m
3 (including
Juruá production), at a pressure of 120kgf/cm2. In this case, three new compression stations
would be necessary: - Cajual (km 72.4), Cutia (km 228) e Codajás (km 405).
This study contemplates the second configuration described above, which includes only two
compression stations (ECOMP´s) Juaruna and Coari.
Figure 3 shows some of the twenty three (23) shut down valves along the pipeline: eleven (11 at
GARSOL) (seven remotely operated by TRANSPETRO); twelve (12) at GASCOM (8 remotely
operated by TRANSPETRO).
Distances between river boards and pipeline path of way vary from 500 m to 30 km. Accesses to
significant points along the pipeline (SDV´s (23), city-gates (10) and pressure reduction stations
(ERP) (8) combine different transportation modals, i.e., by land, by river, by air. All SDVs are
provided with helicopter landing areas.
Forest glades opened during pipeline construction should be recovered through a formal program
specifically created for that purpose. Emergency fighting barges are located near remote
transmission units, existent along the pipeline.
REV.: 3
DATA: 13/05/09
GASODUTO URUCU-MANAUSMALHA NORTE DE GASODUTOS
TRANSPETRO/DGN/GAS/OP//NORTE
GARSOL(URUCU-COARI)(278,8Km ø 18”)
Q = 4600 Mm³/d @ P = 120Kgf/cm²Km 0
UPGN II
URUCU / AM
UM-AMURUCU / AM
UM-AM
Q = 17,5 ~ 175
P = 37
Km
279,9
UPGN III
Qmax=600
Qmax=6000
Q = 4600
ELABORAÇÃO: ENG. EMMANUEL BEZERRA
REVISÃO: Coord. ADILSON JOÃO DA SILVA
P max = 120
LEGENDA:
P = Kgf/cm2
Q = Mm3/dia
CIGÁS: Distribuidora Estadual do Amazonas
Em Azul: Estágio inicial de operação com compressão
em Urucu
Em Rosa: Futuro em primeiro estágio de re-compressão
Em verde: Futuro com todas as ECOMP’s operando.
UPGN I
Qmax=3000
EC
ERP
COARI
ECOMP
CAJUAL
ECOMP
JUARUNA
ECOMP
CUTIA
Km
216,1
Km
152
Km
72,4
20,2 Km
Ø 4”
Km
126,5
ERP
CODAJÁS
25,4 Km
Ø 3”
ECOMP
ECOMP
GASCOM(COARI-MANAUS)
(382,3Km ø 20”)
Q = 4600 Mm³/d @ P = 87,7Kgf/cm²
Q = 6000 Mm³/d @ P = 115Kgf/cm²
Q = 8925Mm³/d @ P = 120Kgf/cm²
P = 65
P = 87,7P = 95,9P = 104P = 112,3
P = 78
P = 65
Q = 6 ~60
P = 37
Km
162,9
ERP
ANORI
27,5 Km
Ø 3”
P = 75
P = 65
Q = 1,5 ~15
P = 37
Km
196
ERP
ANAMÃ
23,7 Km
Ø 3”
P = 72,1
P = 65
Q = 1,5 ~15
P = 37
Km
233,1
ERP
CAAPIRANGA
6,9 Km
Ø 3”
ECOMP
P = 68,9
P = 65
Q = 1,5 ~ 15
P = 37
Km
298,7
ERP
MANACAPURU
7 Km
Ø 3”
P = 62,5
P = 62,5
Q = 17,5 ~175
P = 37
Km
355,5
ERP
IRANDUBA
12,4 Km
Ø 3”
P = 56,9
P = 56,9
Q = 6~60
P = 37
12,3 Km
Ø 14”P = 56,9
Q = 100 ~ 1200
P = 48Q = 1658,5
Q = 150 ~2500 CIGÁS
UTE
APARECIDA
Km
382,5
ERP MANAUS
PE
REMANP = 51,7
Q = 400
P = 40
3,7 Km
Ø 14”P = 51,7
Q = 135 ~ 2125
P = 37Q = 705,7
Q = 65 ~ 1075 CIGÁS
UTE MAUÁ
P = 17P = 17
CIGÁS CIGÁSCIGÁS CIGÁS CIGÁS
CIGÁS
PE
MANACAPURU
PE
CAAPIRANGAPE
ANAMÃ
PE
ANORIPE
CODAJÁS
PE
COARI
PE
IRANDUBA
PE
APARECIDA
PE
MAUÁ
GASCOMGARSOL
Km
0,0
VI CONGRESSO NACIONAL DE EXCELÊNCIA EM GESTÃO Energia, Inovação, Tecnologia e Complexidade para a Gestão Sustentável
Niterói, RJ, Brasil, 5, 6 e 7 de agosto de 2010
5
REV.: 2
DATA: 30/05/09
GASODUTO GARSOLMALHA NORTE
TRECHO URUCU-COARIDGN/GAS/OP/NORTE
ELABORAÇÃO: ENG. EMMANUEL BEZERRA
REVISÃO: Cood. ADILSON JOÃO DA SILVA
PO
LO
AR
AR
A
RETIFICADOR
SDV-03
REMOTA
Km 31,9 Km 68,4
LP-01
CAJUAL Km 72,4
SDV-04
Km 92,1
ECOMP
SDV-05
REMOTA
Km 113,2
LP-03
JUARUNA Km 152
RP-03
ECOMP
MEDIÇÃO
MEDIÇÃO
SDV-07
Km 173,4
SDV-08
REMOTA
Km 199,7
SDV-01
REMOTAURUCU Km 0
CUTIA Km 216,1
ECOMP
MEDIÇÃO
SDV-09
REMOTA
Km 228,7
SDV-10
Km 261,8
RP-01
COARI Km 279
CX PROV.
COR.
Km 68,4
CX PROV.
COR.
Km 278,5
LEGENDA:
Em Rosa: Futuro
-
-
-
-RETIFICADOR
SDV-07A
REMOTA
SDV-11
REMOTA
SDV-02
-
-
RETIFICADOR
Gas Demand
Petrobras is supposed to deliver 5,500Mm3/d to Amazoniaas Gas Company and to Manaus Energy
Company. A gas volume of 2,000Mm3/d will be consumed by independent thermal energy
producers, located in Manaus, where 2,800Mm3/d of gas will also be supplied to thermo plants
Mauá and Aparecida.
There will be gas consumption of 200Mm3/d from small villages, like Coari, Codajás, Anori,
Caapiranga, Anamã, Iranduba and Manacapuru. It is forecasted an additional volume of
500Mm3/d for other consumers – local industry and vehicles.
Energy Companies that operate locally, using combustible oil, will have their thermo plants
adapted to operate with dual fuel, using natural gas as the main option.
This study considers that gas demand will be of 5,815Mm3/d, during the whole period of 2010 to
2020. There will be gas provision to Manaus Refinery (REMAN) (see Table 1 below).
Gas Demand
Flow
(Mm3/d)
CIGAS (gas distribution company) 500
Thermo plants Aparecida and Mauá 2800
Independent energy producers 2000
Seven branches consumers (CEAM) 200
VI CONGRESSO NACIONAL DE EXCELÊNCIA EM GESTÃO Energia, Inovação, Tecnologia e Complexidade para a Gestão Sustentável
Niterói, RJ, Brasil, 5, 6 e 7 de agosto de 2010
6
Manaus Refinery (REMAN) 315
Total 5815
Pipeline Sections
For the purpose of this study, pipeline was segmented in several sections, according to the
difficulty of accessing the path of way and to different feasible ways (modals) of transportation.
Taking into consideration the experienced construction team suggestions, the following sections
were considered:
o Section 1- GARSOL - from Urucu to km 36 – Access: by land, during flood and dry
periods.
o Section 2 – GARSOL – from km 36 to km 68 – Isolated and dry area: Inside the jungle,
not feasible to access by land or river. Access should be made using helicopter from Urucu.
o Section 3 – GARSOL - from km 69 to Coari (km 279): Parallel to Urucu river; up to 3km
far from pipeline path of way. Access: by land + river or by air.
o Section 4 – GASCOM – from Coari to Anamã + 36 km (km 232): Critical section, difficult
soil; impossible to use heavy machines to dig; flooded areas; difficulty to dig and to raise
the pipeline for repair. During dry period, in case of failure occurrence, it will be necessary
to dig manually. Dificulty of access: through the pipeline path of way due to alternating
flooded and dry areas. Access: through igarapés; distances from Solimões river vary from
500m, during flood, to 4 km, during dry period.
o Section 5 - GASCOM – from Anamã + 36 km to Manacapuru Lake (km 299): less critical
than section 4, but still isolated areas.
o Section 6 – GASCOM – Manacapuru Lake (km 299) to Manaus (km 383). Access: by
land, from Manaus, after Negro river crossing.
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS
Period of Analysis: 10 years from 2010.
Configuration considered: 5,815Mm3/d @ 9,400 kcal/m
3; two gas compression stations
(Juraruna and Coari).
Failure scenarios:
o Only failures related to gas main pipelines were considered, i.e., GARSOL and GASCOM.
o Failure scenarios related to SDVs and city-gates are considered to be repaired using
helicopters and already existing landing areas around pipeline valves; or through land,
using resources already existing on Transpetro operational areas.
Types of failures:
o Failures were gathered according to the repair method addressed:
o small hole - repaired by leak repair clamps, welded sleeve or composite.
o rupture - repaired through pipeline section replacement.
Directional drilling:
VI CONGRESSO NACIONAL DE EXCELÊNCIA EM GESTÃO Energia, Inovação, Tecnologia e Complexidade para a Gestão Sustentável
Niterói, RJ, Brasil, 5, 6 e 7 de agosto de 2010
7
o Only failures modes related to construction or material faults, landslide and earthquakes
were considered.
Preventive maintenance:
o Regular pig inspections are scheduled; no failures related to pig inspections were
considered.
Communication systems:
o No failures on communication systems were considered.
Fires:
o No fires were considered.
Impacts of failures scenarios:
o Only consequences related to gas supply shortfalls (undelivered gas volume, associated
loss of income and penalties) were considered. Risks to public, to environment or to assets
were not considered.
Intermediate helicopter landing areas:
o The construction of additional intermediate landing areas for helicopters along the path of
way was evaluated. Sensitive analysis was performed, evaluating gains provided, in terms
of time reduction for defect localization.
Isolated areas:
o Dry and isolated areas (pipeline sections 4, 5 and 6) were assumed to be repaired using
helicopters (models: B212, Kamov or Black Hawk).
Barge with helicopter landing facility:
o Helicopter refueling will be provided by those barges.
Helicopter versus helicopter combined with barges:
o The study considered a time repair reduction of 12 to 24h utilizing helicopter combined
with barge, when compared with the use of helicopter alone.
Special boat:
o A special boat featured to be assembled and transported by helicopter, with the purpose of
providing support to pipeline repair on flooded areas is going to be developed by Petrobras
Research Centre.
Helicopter short line operation:
o No safety risks (although they exist and should be taken into account) are being taken into
consideration when operating with B212 short line operations.
Bulldozer:
o When considering barges combined with bulldozers, the bulldozer arm is considered to be
capable of being extended.
Line packing:
VI CONGRESSO NACIONAL DE EXCELÊNCIA EM GESTÃO Energia, Inovação, Tecnologia e Complexidade para a Gestão Sustentável
Niterói, RJ, Brasil, 5, 6 e 7 de agosto de 2010
8
o In case of the occurrence of failures, thermo plants, independent power producers and
seven (7) gas branches will be fed by other type of combustible in a maximum time of 20
minutes. After that, only gas steady demand consumers will be fed by line-packing.
Gas consumption to thermo plants Thermo plants will consume 2,800Mm3/d, generating
583MWh. Each one of the five (5) independent power producers will consume 400Mm3/d,
generating 60MWh (277 m3/MWh).
Shortfall penalties:
o Penalties in case of the occurrence of contract shortfalls were considered.
Leak detection:
o Ruptures will be observed by operators on Gas Operation Control Centre or by SDV
actuation; small leaks will be detected only by foot inspection every 6 months. Therefore,
for small leaks, the detection time varies from one (1) day to six (6) months. A sensitive
analysis was performed, considering three (3) months.
CO2 emission:
o Conversion factor ton CO2 = 21 * ton CH4; price- U$50/ton CO2.
Emission reduction:
o No effects related to the use of different fuels (gas x oil) were considered.
Flight conditions:
o There are unsuitable fight conditions during 4.5 months per year (October to February).
During that period, the conditions to flight, during the day, are reduced from 11 to 5 hours
per day. This variation is considered to be included on the uncertainty of time to repair,
raised in the field.
Periods of flood:
o Based on a data basis, there are four (4) different periods, but in this study only two of
them were considered: - dry period, during five (5) months; and flood period, during seven
(7) months.
Failures scenarios frequencies:
o Vulnerability to erosion was considered to impact landslide frequency.
o Vulnerability to deforestation was considered to increase third party interference.
o River crossing: Frequency of failures related to landslide, when pipeline is crossing specific
Amazonia rivers, was considered to be 100% higher, when compared to international
statistics.
o Earthquakes: a probability for the occurrence of earthquakes was estimated, as well as of
damaging the pipeline.
METHODOLOGY
VI CONGRESSO NACIONAL DE EXCELÊNCIA EM GESTÃO Energia, Inovação, Tecnologia e Complexidade para a Gestão Sustentável
Niterói, RJ, Brasil, 5, 6 e 7 de agosto de 2010
9
There were several meetings, gathering Petrobras most experienced and capable team, including
technicians from Gas & Power area, Engineering, Transpetro, Brazilian Pipeline Repair Centre
(CREDUTO), E&P subsea and also from Brazilian Army.
First step of the study was to incorporate the experience obtained from the engineering team,
responsible for the construction of Urucu-Coari-Manaus gas pipeline as they had to face
unexpected and adverse conditions. Based on their, experience, different pipeline sections were
defined, considering specific features, like isolation, flooded areas, river crossings, access
limitations, etc. Second step was brain storming workshops with the purpose of providing best
Petrobras evaluation of pipeline sections repair strategies, logistics and resources.
Those meetings provided a very detailed analysis of operating conditions for different pipeline
sections and the evaluation of best practices and strategies to be adopted for pipeline repair,
considering each identified failure scenario, type of repair, logistics, resources (human, equipment,
material) and costs. Equipment weight was also evaluated. Different repair strategies and logistics
options to bring pipeline back to operation were compared with a basic case scenario, in order to
evaluate gains in terms of repair time reductions. A cost benefit analysis was then performed, so
that those different options could be prioritized.
Pipeline Sections:
o Pipeline sections were defined, considering specific features of the region through which
pipeline goes, as for example, type of soil, access conditions, isolation, if submitted to
flood periods; repair possible strategies and logistics, different transport modals, i.e., by
land; by land and river; by land, river and air (helicopter); by helicopter solely.
Failures types:
o Failures were grouped according to type and logistics of repair, defined by the work
group.
For each identified failures scenarios, associated suitable (or feasible) repair types were analyzed.
Failure scenarios were grouped into two categories: the first one contemplates failures that could
be repaired using leak repair clamps, welded sleeves or by a composite (small holes); the second
one relates to failures that require pipeline section replacement (ruptures).
Initiator events frequency estimations:
o It was based on international pipeline failure data banks, as EGIG (European Gas Pipeline
Incident Data Group). Among possible causes of rupture, there were considered soil
movement due to erosion and earthquakes. In case of failures occurring on river crossing,
igarapés, where there are directional drillings, it was considered that a new directional
drilling should be made.
Repair time estimations:
VI CONGRESSO NACIONAL DE EXCELÊNCIA EM GESTÃO Energia, Inovação, Tecnologia e Complexidade para a Gestão Sustentável
Niterói, RJ, Brasil, 5, 6 e 7 de agosto de 2010
10
o Contingency scenarios were defined, based on the combination of failure type on a certain
pipeline section, during flood or dry period and logistic type to be adopted. For each one
of the failure scenarios that were identified, minimum and maximum times were estimated.
Periods of time to bring pipeline back to operation were composed by the following time
estimations:
Warning and SDV’s actuation;
Resources mobilization;
Failure localization and pipeline blow down;
Transportation of people, material, equipment;
Digging, draining and anchoring;
Concrete/cover removal; cleaning;
Repair type definition;
Repair execution;
Pipeline operation recovery.
Failure cost composition:
Based on estimated minimum and maximum repair times, associated failure costs were calculated.
Those costs include the following:
Difference between the cost of generating energy with an alternative fuel and gas generation
cost – for thermo plants, independent power producers; seven (7) branches (CEAM), including
undelivered gas volume for CIGAS consumers.
Loss of income related to undelivered gas volume to gas distribution company CIGAS and
recovered after 10 years;
Costs related to emergency repair resources.
Cost associated with gas volume leakage;
CO2 equivalent emission cost.
RISK OF GAS SUPPLY SHORTFALL - RISKEX
Based on failure frequencies estimations and on the associated repair costs for each failure type
and location, a risk expenditure value – Riskex - was addressed to each scenario, taking into
consideration the product of failure frequency and respective financial losses, related to gas supply
shortfall, leaked gas volume and CO2 emission costs. Total pipeline Riskex is calculated
considering the sum of individual Riskex values, evaluated for each pipeline section and location
analyzed:
tfailurexfrequencyRiskex cos
VI CONGRESSO NACIONAL DE EXCELÊNCIA EM GESTÃO Energia, Inovação, Tecnologia e Complexidade para a Gestão Sustentável
Niterói, RJ, Brasil, 5, 6 e 7 de agosto de 2010
11
Riskex reduction: The Riskex reduction is calculated through the evaluation of the gains obtained
from the difference of Riskex values, associated with each one of the options analyzed, and Riskex
value, associated with the base case scenario.
Results are presented in terms of Net Present Values (NPV) addressed to each analyzed option,
when compared with base case scenario and are given by the difference between the gain (present
value of Riskex reduction), additional costs for each specific option (CAPEX) and present value of
operational and maintenance costs (OPEX). Based on that, those options were prioritized.
EVALUATION OF CONTINGENCY SCENARIOS
Brainstorming workshops were promoted with best in class Petrobras pipeline team, in order to
define strategies and logistics for pipeline repair.
Besides the definition of basic case scenario, eight (8) additional logistics access options for repair
execution were evaluated for each specific location type, along pipeline path of way. Tables 2 and
3 exemplify repair logistics options for each location type, considering basic case and others
options, using special barges and helicopters.
Regarding the implementation of additional helicopter landing areas, a sensitivity analysis was
performed, in order to evaluate the gain that they could provide, as independent events, for fault
location time reduction.
Local Type Basic Case – Barge built in 3 months Barge adapted in 10 to 20 days Barge (H shape) plus Marrecas barges
Dry location;
Access: by land
Pick up/Truck loading crane;
Manual digging.
Pick up/Truck laoding crane;
Manual digging.
Pick up/Truck loading crane;
Manual digging.
Dry location; Isolated
Helicopter B212;
Emergency landing areas;
Manual digging.
Helicopter B212;
Emergency landing areas;
manual digging.
Helicopter B212;
Emergency landing areas;
Manual digging
Dry location; Slope Barge (Dry Cargo); Bulldozer. Barge (Dry Cargo); Bulldozer. Barge H ; Bulldozer
Dry location
Barge (Dry Cargo); Bulldozer;
Vegetation suppression.
Barge (Dry Cargo); Bulldozer;
Vegetation suppression.
Barge H, Bulldozer;
Vegetation suppression.
Flooded location
Construction of a barge with a bulldozer;
Vegetation suppression;
Pipeline should be raised.
Barge adapted with a bulldozer;
Vegetation suppression;
Pipeline should be raised.
Barge H and Marrecas with bulldozer;
Vegetation suppression;
Pipeline should be raised.
High flood level
location
Should wait until flood level is reduced;
Construction of a barge in three months with
a bulldozer;
Pipeline should be raised
Should wait until flood level is reduced;
Barge adapted with a bulldozer;
Pipeline should be raised.
Should wait until flood level is reduced;
Barge H and Marrecas with buldozer;
Pipeline should be raised.
Conventional Crossing
Construction of a barge in three months with
a bulldozer;
Pipeline should be raised.
Barge adapted with a bulldozer;
Pipeline should be raised.
Barge H and Marrecas with buldozer;
Pipeline should be raised.
Directional Crossing Barge and machine third party services Barge and machine third party services Barge and machine third party services
Deep Conventional
Crossing
Barge with hyperbaric chamber from
Campos Basin; saturated diving
Barge with hyperbaric chamber from
Campos Basin; saturated diving
Barge with hyperbaric chamber from Campos
Basin; saturated diving
Local type Helicopter B-212 (1.2 ton)
Helicopter Kamov(5 ton)/MI 171 (4 ton)
mobilized in 4 to 10 days
Helicopter Black Hawk/Cougar 532 (3,5
ton) mobilized in 1.5 to 4 days
Dry location Access
by land
Pick up/Truck loading crane;
Manual digging
Pick up/Truck loading crane;
Manual digging
Pick up/Truck loading crane;
Manual digging
Dry location Isolated
Helicopter B-212;
Emergency landing areas;
Manual digging.
Helicopter Kamov/MI 171;
Emergency landing areas;
Digging using bobcat.
Helicopter Black Hawk/Cougar 532;
Emergency landing areas;
Digging using bobcat.
Dry location Slope
Helicopter B-212;
Emergency landing areas;
Manual digging.
Helicopter Kamov/MI 171;
Emergency landing areas;
Digging using bobcat.
Helicopter Black Hawk/Cougar 532;
Emergency landing areas;
Digging using bobcat.
Dry location
Helicopter B-212;
Emergency landing areas;
Manual digging
Helicopter Kamov/MI 171;
Emergency landing areas;
Digging using bobcat.
Helicopter Black Hawk/Cougar 532 ;
Emergency landing areas;
Digging using bobcat.
Flooded location
Helicopter B-212;
Emergency landing areas;
Draining pumps;
Subsea repair.
Helicopter Kamov/MI 171;
Emergency landing areas;
Draining pumps;
Subsea repair.
Helicopter Black Hawk/Cougar 523;
Emergency landing areas;
Draining pumps;
Subsea repair.
High flood level
location
Helicopter B-212;
Emergency landing areas;
Draining pumps;
Subsea repair.
Helicopter Kamov/MI 171;
Emergency landing areas;
Draining pumps;
Subsea repair.
Helicopter Black Hawk/Cougar 523;
Emergency landing areas;
Draining pumps;
Subsea repair.
Conventional Crossing
Helicopter B-212;
Emergency landing areas;
Draining pumps;
Subsea repair.
Helicopter Kamov/MI 171;
Emergency landing areas;
Draining pumps;
Subsea repair.
Helicopter Black Hawk/Cougar 523;
Emergency landing areas;
Draining pumps;
Subsea repair.
Directional Crossing Barge and machine third party services Barge and machine third party services Barge and machine third party services
Deep Conventional
Crossing
Barge with hyperbaric chamber from Campos
Basin; saturated diving
Barge with hyperbaric chamber from Campos
Basin; saturated diving
Barge with hyperbaric chamber from
Campos Basin; saturated diving
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 4 below shows a resume of the options that were analyzed:
Base Case
Barges to be constructed in three months
Other Logistics Options
Barges to be adapted use (10 to 20 days)
Barges (H shape + Marrecas) purchased
Helicopter B212 (1.2 ton)
Helicopter Kamov (5 ton)/MI 171
Helicopter Black Hawk/Cougar 532 (3.5 ton)
Barge and Helicopter B212 (1.2 ton)
Barge and Helicopter Kamov (5 ton)/MI 171 (4 ton)
Barge and Helicopter Black Hawk/Cougar 532 (3.5 ton)
Negro River Crossing
Hyperbaric chamber
Inspection Reduction Sensitivity
Fault detection time – each 3 months
For each one of the options that were considered, failure frequency scenarios and minimum and
maximum repair times were estimated, for each failure location type and pipeline section.
Then, costs associated with each time to repair were estimated and expressed in terms of loss of
supply to consumers. Those costs took into account the difference between energy generation
costs, associated with the use of combustible oil by thermo plants, by independent power
producers and other consumers, CEAM, CIGAS. Costs associated with emergency repair
resources and CO2 emission costs were also considered.
Once costs have been estimated, risk values were calculated (Riskex – Risk Expenditures) as a
product of frequencies and costs. Then, for each analyzed option Riskex reductions were
calculated, when compared with basic case scenario, and net present values addressed.
Those values are shown on Figure 4. The option related to the greater NPV value refers to the use
of helicopter B212 to perform repairs. But there are safety restrictions related to the use of that
kind of helicopter performing short line operations due to Amazonia trees height. Long line
helicopter operations are considered to be much safer. Therefore, as can be noted on Figure 4, the
third best option, in terms of NPV, is the use of a service support barge, combined with helicopter
from Brazilian Army (helicopter Black Hawk/Cougar 532), adapted for operation with long line.
When choosing that option, for flooded areas or for conventional crossings, it will be necessary to
count with subsea repair resources, with a special diving support boat, that could fit and be
mobilized through the use of helicopter.
In order to point out necessary arrangements that should be anticipated, so that option can be
feasible as the one that could give best support to all identified failure scenarios, the following
recommendations are made:
o Petrobras should establish a detailed agreement with Brazilian Army;
VI CONGRESSO NACIONAL DE EXCELÊNCIA EM GESTÃO Energia, Inovação, Tecnologia e Complexidade para a Gestão Sustentável
Niterói, RJ, Brasil, 5, 6 e 7 de agosto de 2010
14
o Internal company agreements should be established, so that subsea repair expertise could
be brought to Transpetro, that is responsible for pipeline operation, inspection and
maintenance;
o Previous agreements and emergency strategies should be established with Amazonia
Environment Authority, Citizen Defense and Brazilian Army;
o Development of a special diving support boat with a moon pool that could fit and be
mobilized by helicopter (by Petrobras Research Centre);
o Training of Brazilian pilots on long line operations; homologation of helicopters/pilots for
long line operation;
o Simulation and training on subsea repair during flood conditions;
o Logistics emergency simulation and training;
o Investments on the implementation and improvement of Pipeline Repair Advanced Center
in Manaus and Coari (the Pipeline Repair Centre is located in São Paulo);
o Consumers, as thermo plants, independent energy producers and others should be prepared
to commutate their turbo machines to combustible oil, so that shortfall impacts could be
minimized;
o Procedures should be taken in order to avoid combustible oil degradation, during storage
time;
o A data basis system, responsible for erosion and deforestation monitoring, should be kept
updated; it should also be utilized as an input for inspection procedures planning;
o Contact and training programs should be established with local community, along pipeline
path of way, so that they could give warning when leaks occur and for supporting during
pipeline path of way maintenance purposes;
o Emergency and prompt response programs should be well established.
This study has provided an important contribution to the operation and repair of Urucu-Coari-
Manaus pipeline and for experience exchanging between personnel from different Petrobras areas.
It has gathered technicians from Petrobras Engineering, who brought their experience on pipeline
construction to the group; people from São Paulo Pipeline Repair Centre (CREDUTO), who
contributed with their expertise on onshore pipeline repair; technicians from TAG, who
contributed with their expertise on pipeline repair; people from Petrobras Research Centre
(CENPES); whose contribution was very significant, with the availability of Amazonia data
collection and monitoring system and also with the possibility of developing new technologies for
repair support; experts from E&P area, who contributed with their know how on subsea repair;
and for sure, Transpetro operational team, who brought important information and experience.
It was an exercise of anticipation of risk and crisis scenarios, that provided an important support
for the decision making process, related to best investment allocation, concerning different options
of repair resources and logistics. This work brought formal and innovative solutions, as well as
recommendations for optimizing Amazonia gas pipeline operation.
Net Present Value of Each Option in Relation to the Base Case
-40.00
-20.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
Barg
e an
d B21
2B212
Barg
e an
d Bla
ck H
awk/C
ougar 5
32
Bla
ck Haw
k/Cougar
532
Barg
es (H
shape
d and
Mar
recas
)
Barg
es to
be adap
ted in
10 to
20 d
ays
Barg
e an
d Kam
ov/MI 1
71
Kam
ov/M
I 171
12 A
PODOs
Wood Is
olate
d Pla
ces
12 A
PODOs
Isola
ted P
lace
s
20 A
PODOs
Inte
rmedia
ries
60 A
PODOs
Hyper
baric
Cham
ber
Fault
Det
ectio
n Tim
e
Option
NP
V (
Mil
lio
ns R
$)
NPV Minimum NPV Average NPV Maximum
Repair Logistic Options
Intermediaries
Helicopter Landing
Areas
Negro River
Crossing
Inspection 3
Months
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank to the following engineers, who have contributed to this paper:
Mauro Loureiro and Gilberto Barbosa (Petrobras Engineering)
Mucio Pinto (Petrobras/CREDUTO)
Adilson da Silva, Leonardo Forte, Claudio Batista e Silva (TRANSPETRO)
Celso Pereira and Jesualdo Lobão (TAG)
Fernando Pellon, Claudia Tocantins and Ney Robson (Petrobras Research Centre (CENPES)
Heraldo Pamplona (Petrobras/E&P)
Gustavo Parente e Luiz Pires (Pontifícia Universidade Católica)
REFERENCES
CREDUTO, Operation Guide – Pipeline Repair Logistics – Coari Repair Advanced Centre, 2009.
EGIG, 7th Report of the European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group, 1970 - 2007, 2007.
Transpetro, Technical Report – Pre-operation of Urucu-Coari- Manaus Pipeline, 2009.
Transpetro, Technical Report, GT 4, Logistics Technical Solutions Implementation, 2009.