Monitoring Cathodic Protection System Performance in Deepwater Production Operations (Part 2. 2005) 16 Years Later (Part 1.

1989 [1])
Jim Britton Deepwater Corrosion Services Inc. & MPE Lindung Sdn. Bhd. Key Differences with Deepwater Operations In many cases it is not the actual water depth but rather the nature of the production hardware that determines optimum maintenance and inspection strategies. For example truly deepwater fields (> 1000 M) there are two basic options for hardware selection: 1. Use wet trees and send production back through flowlines to a host production facility (Floater or Fixed Platform). 2. Use dry trees produce from floater in relatively close proximity to wells. In either event there will be one thing in common, ROVs will be the main tool for the majority of corrosion related subsea inspection and monitoring tasks. Thus we must determine where they can best interface into the scheme. If a floater, which could be anyone of a number of configurations, is used. There will normally be additional classing society regulated inspection requirements. These will include hull integrity monitoring requirements not found on fixed production systems. Part if this process, normally termed In-Service Inspection, is a periodic UWILD or Underwater Inspection In-Lieu of Dry-docking. It is these regulated inspections where most hull and mooring system CP monitoring is achieved. These inspections are normally performed with an ROV, even though they are largely in diver depth range. The reason for this being overall efficiency of using a machine rather than a person. Basic Monitoring Options As with any other cathodic protection or corrosion monitoring application there are two general strategies, the most successful programs incorporate a combination of the two. Portable Monitoring Permanent Monitoring Measurements made using portable instrumentation. Measurements made with permanently mounted sensors.

There are a host of pros and cons between the two methods [1]. But lets focus on the true strengths of each method.

Portable Monitoring Can provide a comprehensive survey of CP status, at time of inspection, over a large percentage of the structure where access with a portable device is practical. This is the preferred method for the following applications: 1. 2. Baseline Surveys. Calibration of Permanent Devices.

Permanent Monitoring Provides the ability to remotely monitor system status, on a time base, with absolute point repeatability. This adds a predictive value to the data allowing trends to be more meaningfully tracked. The monitoring exercise is largely de-skilled with permanent systems giving a generally higher level of data reliability. Human and/or instrument calibration errors are eliminated. Having set the stage a quick review chronology of key advances (and dead ends) in the Offshore CP Monitoring business would be as listed below. Many of these innovations are described in greater detail [2] [3] Brief Chronology of CP Monitoring of Offshore Corrosion Circa 1972 Circa 1975 Circa 1979 First permanent monitoring systems (hard wired) installed on offshore structures. Mainly just reference electrodes. North Sea. First attempts to use acoustically linked data transmission. Never really practical due to battery life and cost. North Sea. First practical ROVs with CP inspection capability and useful operational reliability. Main interest is on pipeline inspection to provide alternate to trailing wire inspections, known to be inaccurate. Early Probes were interesting affairs. North Sea. First three electrode survey performed on an offshore pipeline. This became survey method of choice for offshore pipelines, still in use today. North Sea. Improved contact ROV probes allow direct interface without digitizing. Gulf Of Mexico. First permanent offshore current density sensors deployed Gulf of Mexico. The first self bleed Zn SW permanent reference electrode was installed. Reliability improved dramatically. Gulf of Mexico

Circa 1980

Circa 1984 Circa 1985 Circa 1986

Circa 1988 Circa 1990 Circa 1997 Circa 1998 Circa 2000 Circa 2000 Circa 2004

First twin element probes put into service. Still the most widely used contact probe for ROV. Gulf of Mexico. First reliable anode current monitors and current density sensors deployed on deep fixed offshore structures. Gulf of Mexico. First Deepwater Self Contained ROV CP measurement system. Gulf of Mexico. Systems installed using subsea modems to transmit data in offshore pipelines. Self Contained ROV CP Measurement System modified to present form. Gulf of Mexico. The ultra-rugged reference electrode conductor was developed. Gulf of Mexico. The invention of the solar powered subsea test station. Gulf of Mexico.

Portable Surveys Most of the instrumentation used for portable surveys is confined to the use of reference electrodes for potential or field gradient monitoring. The present systems used for ROV interface can be broadly divided into two types; Integrated and Self Contained. An integrated instrument will send data to the surface as an analog or digital signal to be read on a surface instrument or logging system. This is the basis of most subsea pipeline inspection systems and much general purpose CP probes. Fig 1.

Figure 1.Twin Element Contact ROV CP Probe A self-contained system has no direct-wired interface with the ROV system, and merely uses the ROV as a transport and video eyeball for the system. Fig 2.

Figure 2. Self Contained CP Measurement System The choice between these two types of probe will hinge largely on the type of inspection required. If it is a limited number of point readings then the self-contained system provides a host of cost advantages. If a close interval type survey is required, a system with subsea digitizer is preferred with a topside logging computer. The main requirement of either system is to ensure calibration accuracy at all times online. This is important as errors in these systems can develop in deep water over a period of time, and are not always easy to track. The best way to guard against this is to always use twin element probes on independent readouts (in essence deploying a fully redundant measurement system). Recent developments now allow point gradient measurement on self-contained systems. This technology can replace the need for complicated close interval surveys, and can significantly reduce cost. Permanent Monitoring The use of fixed sensors to monitor CP system performance is gaining momentum all the time, both onshore and offshore. The reason is mainly one of enhanced Oil Industry HSE pressure to improve the quality of asset integrity management, and being able to do so with no more money. Offshore permanent monitoring systems have been around for a while, and have undergone continuous improvement. Sensors are now exceedingly robust and reliable Fig. 4, Fig. 5 and options for interrogating them have increased now to two viable and reliable methods: 1. 2. Hard wire to surface Subsea ROV visual inspection

Figure 4. Top - Ruggedized Retrofittable Zinc Electrode

Figure 5. Right Permanent Polarization Monitor The combination of these two methods is the key to an optimized asset integrity program. Hard Wire The surface hard wired systems can be used in areas where getting the cables to the surface is relatively simple and inexpensive or where it is desirable to have on-line ondemand access to CP performance data. Other areas where hard wire to surface is preferred are: 1. 2. In conjunction with impressed current cathodic protection systems. a. FPSOs b. Drillships with deep-water drilling riser systems. Where external subsea readout would require a hull penetration. a. Seawater Ballast Tanks.

Hard Wire System Economics 1.01 >75% of the cost to deploy and wire a surface hard-wired instrument is in the cost of the electrical cable and the installation of the cable and instrument. Only about 20% - 25% of the cost is in the instrument. This means that these permanent sensors must be rugged and reliable. Do not use cheap or untested instruments. Use Combination instruments wherever possible to save on number of cables. Fig. 5. Once in place a typical hard-wired system will pay for itself many times over in reduced offshore man-hours, shifting the task and man-hours to an onshore data management function. This provides significant HSE benefit by eliminating un-necessary personnel exposure to the hazards of an offshore production facility.

Subsea Visual Indicators Introduction The evolution of this device from within the authors company was a natural progression. When a company works closely with the Deepwater ROV industry two things become apparent; 1. 2. Theres no ambient light in deep water. Without a video-camera you are blind and of zero worth.

So all ROVs by definition have lights and cameras. Fig 6. Hence the original idea of using light activated power up for ROV instruments. This was very successful, and is still in use, extending battery life in the portable instruments to better than 6 months without charge or replacement.

Figure 6. All ROVs have Lights and Cameras Substituting the photo-sensors for solar panels, and taking the readout off the vehicle and putting it onto the equipment was a natural progression. This opened the door by eliminating the need for subsea batteries, so now a visual voltage readout powered on demand makes sense and can be designed for a 20 yr plus life. Now we can go to permanent monitors and reap all the advantages of repeatability and simplicity and wire them subsea to the readout. It became clear that this was a superior solution for routine ROV monitoring during UWILD or other routine intervention tasks. Solar-Readout SunStationTM* Applications The solar readouts would be located at points where ROV intervention is expected to be regular. Thus advantage can be taken of this visitation and a FREE inspection secured on the recorded record of the intervention. Some such points would be; 1. 2. 3. 4. Wellhead ROV control panels. Mooring attachments. Dynamic equipment, risers. Pipeline termination or connection skids (PLETs or PLEMs)

The solar readout contains all information pertinent to the location of the sensors and the specifics of the value displayed. This information is contained on a simple bezel around the display Fig. 7. The ROV Video Overlay will impose other relevant information such as time and date, water depth and a verification of location often with XY coordinates.

Trademark of Deepwater Corrosion Services Inc. Houston, TX. Pat. Pending.

Figure 7. Typical Solar Readout Configuration 4- Channel Bezel Contains Location and Readout Unit Information The subsea image recorded on the DVD provides a complete record of the inspection event with no additional data recording required. Fig. 8.

Figure 8. Offshore Retrofitted Unit Because we are using a self contained voltage readout we can achieve high resolution, and can accept data from any of the ruggedized sensors that are already available and well proven in service. Fig 9.

Figure 9. Monitored Anodes (Left) and Current Density Monitors / Dual Element Reference Electrodes (Right) can be Output to Solar Readout. The Future of Deepwater Cathodic Protection Here we go into the unknown. However the authors prediction of where the state of the art will move in the next decade is as follows, (based on the leading edge applications currently
being deployed in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.)

1. More use of impressed current to protect floating production hulls and mooring terminations. As the structures become larger and more complex, the cost and weight saving advantages of ICCP will ultimately win through. 2. Use of dedicated smart anode structures Fig. 10. Fig 11.to protect multiple subsea elements. The subsea displays will be the status indicators and will deskill CP management to a routine meter reading task. This is the most efficient way to use and manage sacrificial anode systems in deep water. 3. Move toward permanent monitoring rather than portable. This will be accompanied by routine use of satellite data transmission to allow global access to records, and to facilitate automatic internet based regulatory reporting. This will mirror other asset integrity management initiatives geared toward developing event-based rather than interval-based programs.

Figure 10. Smart Anode Pods will Protect Multiple Subsea Structures

Figure 11. ROV Can Read Entire System Status from Display Panel

References [1] Monitoring of Cathodic Protection Systems in Deepwater Production Systems J. Britton Corrosion 89 Paper #578. [2] Monitoring Offshore Cathodic Protection Systems Technologies and Regulatory Requirements J. Britton Materials Performance Aug. 1991 [3] Recent Advances in Offshore Cathodic Protection Monitoring J. Britton, J.P. LaFontaine, and G.T Gibson Corrosion 2000 Paper # 00672