ISSN 1984-9354 PETROBRAS AMAZÔNIA GAS: REPAIR LOGISTICS ... · PETROBRAS AMAZÔNIA GAS: REPAIR LOGISTICS EVALUATION STUDY Denise Faertes (Petrobras) [email protected] Joaquim

PETROBRAS AMAZÔNIA GAS: REPAIR

LOGISTICS EVALUATION STUDY

Denise Faertes (Petrobras)

[email protected]

Joaquim Domingues (DNV)

[email protected]

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;



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



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



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:



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:



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



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:



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



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.


Manual digging.

Dry location; Isolated

Helicopter B212;

Emergency landing areas;

Manual digging.

Helicopter B212;


manual digging.

Helicopter B212;


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;


Barge H, Bulldozer;


Flooded location

Construction of a barge with a bulldozer;

Vegetation suppression;

Pipeline should be raised.

Barge adapted with a bulldozer;



Barge H and Marrecas with bulldozer;



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





Barge H and Marrecas with buldozer;


Conventional Crossing

Construction of a barge in three months with

a bulldozer;




Barge H and Marrecas with buldozer;


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

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


Manual digging


Manual digging


Manual digging

Dry location Isolated

Helicopter B-212;


Manual digging.

Helicopter Kamov/MI 171;


Digging using bobcat.

Helicopter Black Hawk/Cougar 532;



Dry location Slope

Helicopter B-212;


Manual digging.







Dry location

Helicopter B-212;


Manual digging




Helicopter Black Hawk/Cougar 532 ;



Flooded location

Helicopter B-212;


Draining pumps;

Subsea repair.



Draining pumps;

Subsea repair.



Draining pumps;

Subsea repair.

High flood level

location

Helicopter B-212;


Draining pumps;

Subsea repair.



Draining pumps;

Subsea repair.



Draining pumps;

Subsea repair.

Conventional Crossing

Helicopter B-212;


Draining pumps;

Subsea repair.



Draining pumps;

Subsea repair.



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







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;



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.

Documents

ISSN 1984-9354 PETROBRAS AMAZÔNIA GAS: REPAIR LOGISTICS ... · PETROBRAS AMAZÔNIA GAS: REPAIR LOGISTICS EVALUATION STUDY Denise Faertes (Petrobras) [email protected] Joaquim