2
PFP Integrity Management North Sea, Eu © MMI Engineering, 2013 Talisman-Sinopec Energy (TSE) acquired offshore/onshore facilities with degraded Passive Fire Protection (PFP). MMI Engineering (MM) was appoi nted to assist Talisman in assessing the situation and to prioritise actions. Talisman received a robust and manageable process, which would serve the company for years to come. TSE had acquired 11 offshore production facilities (including the replacement to Piper Alpha) and one onshore process facility, some of which dated back to the 1970’s. Designs included fixed platforms (4 and 8 leg jackets), bridge linked facilities, semi-submersible and FPSO facilities. Records detailing the rationale behind the initial PFP design were poor or missing. Many years of neglect prior to handover meant that the PFP had itself become a hazard, failing to meet safety Performance Standards and regulatory requirements. Talisman was tasked with demonstrating to regulators how they planned to restore the PFP to a safe and compliant condition. TSE selected MMI for its team of PFP specialists, experienced in the design, testing, application, inspection and integrity management of all types of hydrocarbon PFP; coupled with technical safety and structural engineering expertise. MMI led the Joint Industry Project sponsored by the UK regulator to examine the degradation mechanism of PFP and undertook over 20 jet fire tests on different materials and anomalies to investigate and quantify their effect on fire performance. The first step was to ensure that the importance of PFP was understood from asset to asset. A matrix was created so that assets could be measured not only on a condition basis, but also on criticality in terms of potential harm to people, the environment and the business. MMI then visited each asset to familiarise itself with the layout, processes and hazards unique to each facility. It also recorded what PFP systems were installed and what condition they were in. Each facility was then ranked according to condition/criticality, so that subsequent activities could be prioritised. Once all sites had been visited, MMI examined the existing safety studies (QRA, FERA, EER, etc.), structural models and process flow models. All the safety critical elements requiring PFP were identified and ranked for criticality , the potential MAH’s quantified in terms of Design Accident Loads at a frequency considered acceptable in terms of ALARP, and new Performance Standards developed in alignment with industry best practice. MMI used this information to undertake a detailed, close-visual inspection of the PFP. With the results of this survey, together with the prioritisation matrix, MMI developed manageable work-scopes and budgets, covering repairs and upgrades over a five-year timeframe to return the platforms to a safe and compliant condition Claymore Complex Damaged PFP with netting to prevent PFP dropped objects Criticality / Anomaly Prioritization Matrix PFP Integrity Management Process
