The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-2511.htm

JQME
19,2
Maintenance of subsea petroleum
production systems: a case study
Tore Markeset, Jorge Moreno-Trejo and Rajesh Kumar
Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering and Materials Science,
128 University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify and discuss maintenance challenges and maintenance
practices for subsea petroleum production systems.
Design/methodology/approach Maintenance challenges, current practices and factors that
influence the maintenance and support practices were identified by a literature review and by using a
case study conducted in the Norwegian oil and gas industry. The case study was based on semi-
structured face-to-face interviews with a number of experts working in the subsea systems design,
installation and support services in the Norwegian oil and gas industry.
Findings The paper identifies and discusses subsea petroleum production system failures,
maintenance, inspection, modification and support practices. Findings from literature are validated,
and new challenges are identified and discussed.
Research limitations/implications The research is based on a case study in the Norwegian
petroleum industry, but may be applicable in other countries as well. The subsea production systems
are critical production systems, and failures may result in long downtime and costly maintenance,
inspection and support services. Hence, inspection, maintenance and modification intervention
support services requires careful project planning, implementation and execution, taking into account
all influencing factors.
Originality/value The identified challenges can be used by decision makers in offshore
maintenance projects.
Keywords Underwater technology, Petroleum technology, Inspection, Maintenance, Repair,
Subsea petroleum production systems, Subsea system failures, Subsea intervention services
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering
Vol. 19 No. 2, 2013
pp. 128-143
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1355-2511
DOI 10.1108/13552511311315940
Introduction
The use of subsea equipment and systems to produce hydrocarbons has brought new
challenges and created demand for more efficient maintenance strategies. Subsea systems
are often standardized up to a certain level and individually customized, and usually robust
solutions are chosen to ensure high reliability. The subsea systems often consist of complex
equipment designed to perform critical functions and to overcome extreme conditions.
Today they are designed to work in increasingly deeper waters at more remote locations.
As the technology is developed the petroleum industry is finding and developing
reservoirs in increasingly deeper waters. Water depths from 610-1,829 meters (2,000-
6,000 feet) are referred to as deep water, while depths beyond 1,829 meters are referred
to as ultra deep water (ISO 13628-1, 2005).
Subsea systems are used to produce petroleum in deep water, often together with
topside facilities, such as a floating production, storage and offload facility (FPSO).
The subsea systems are also used to produce petroleum in shallow waters or to
The authors are grateful to PEMEX Exploracion y Produccion for financing the study.
Furthermore, the authors would like to thank the participants of the case study for information
and many insightful suggestions.
enhance production from mature fields by connecting other nearby fields to existing Subsea
production facilities. production
Subsea engineering is still a young discipline, and even though the systems are
often over-designed and extremely costly, many unforeseen failures that require systems
corrective maintenance repairs and shutdown periods still occur. The consequences of
failures may vary according to malfunctions in the equipment and the impact on the
process. The consequences should be assessed considering production loss and costs. 129
To avoid failures and to ensure high reliability, it is important to consider, during the
design process, how the subsea environment will influence the systems operations,
failures and degradation processes, as well as maintenance processes such as inspection,
maintenance or modifications. The systems need to be designed with respect to factors
such as corrosive environment, cold temperatures, high pressures, difficult accessibility,
etc. However, the subsea environment is often poorly understood, with respect to how it
influences the deterioration mechanisms causing failures.
Due to failures and degradation, the systems also need regular inspections and
maintenance or modifications due to the requirement for changes in functional
capacities. Subsea systems are only upgraded when the systems fail, and spare parts
are most often not available. Thus, one needs to develop suitable and cost-effective
subsea maintenance and support strategies that consider how the environment
influences the performance of the maintenance activities to ensure the shortest
possible downtime and less costly intervention services.
Subsea intervention services entail the use of specialized vessels, equipment and
personnel with unique skills, competence and experience, as well as tools customized
for the individual subsea system and job type (see also Uyiomendo and Markeset,
2010). The systems are often located in waters too deep for diver operations and require
the use of subsea robots such as remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) and remotely
operated tools (ROTs) for installation, inspection, maintenance, upgradation and
modifications. Thus, the systems need to be designed for easy access with simple tools.
Modular design is often chosen to allow for easy replacement using the ROV to
reduce downtime. Furthermore, mostly customized technological solutions and non-
standardized tools are used during the maintenance activities (Moreno-Trejo et al.,
2012). Relevant system functions and sub-functions should be identified, analyzed and
categorized with respect to function, failures and failure consequences, to ensure that
the maintenance strategy covers critical components and systems (NORSOK Standard
Z-008, 2011; Vinnem et al., 2012).
The strategies to maintain subsea systems are established in the design and concept
selection process. Periodic inspection and maintenance campaigns, as well as
monitoring of the condition of individual components using sensors, enables the
decision makers to plan and schedule further interventions to reduce downtime. Major
costs result from unplanned system stoppages for unscheduled repair. One factor that
influences the incident rate is the designed reliability of a system, as lower reliability
leads to more failures (Kumar and Kumar, 2004). Maintaining installations in optimum
conditions will safeguard people, the environment and stakeholders investments.
Maintenance services represent a support function, and the effectiveness and efficiency
of maintenance management is the result of the use of proper tools, spare parts, materials
and human resources (Sherwin, 2000). The companies are continuously striving to
improve their practices to remove, reduce or improve subsea interventions to remove/
reduce costly shutdowns and to increase production regularity. The planning of
maintenance of subsea petroleum production systems is thus becoming more important.
JQME Therefore, it will also be important to study how the subsea environment and the remote
19,2 location of the subsea system influence the performance of subsea intervention services.
Based on a case study in the Norwegian oil and gas industry, this paper identifies
and discusses challenges, maintenance practices and support services related to
subsea petroleum production systems.

130 Subsea systems failures

Subsea installations that are continually in contact with water, salt and currents over
longer periods may corrode, beginning with a small corrosion in any area of the
equipment. If not appropriately maintained, the corroded area may grow and result in
function failure, production losses and leakage, which may result in major pollution.
Subsea systems are exposed to stress and corrosive environments that can affect
performance. For example, the choke valves may erode. The power and instrumentation
cables may also degrade in different ways. Flanges or fasteners may corrode even with
the use of anodes. Subsea control systems often have electronic components that need to
be re-calibrated, and also hydraulic components such as valves that can be affected as
they are in frequent motion. Furthermore, fasteners may fail due to corrosion, overload or
fatigue (Esaklul and Ahmed, 2009).
Extreme conditions such as depth, temperature, salt, sea current or accidents
during operations can increase the risk of failures. Some components are subjected
to wear processes or corrosion and need to be replaced. A replacement program for
such components and the resources needed for carrying out the replacement
activities should be planned and prepared. In the worst case, spare parts may be
obsolete, resulting in entire systems needing to be replaced to assure the integrity of
the subsea production facility.
To reduce the effect of corrosion, blocks of zinc anodes are used for cathodic
protection. The anodes corrode instead of the material and need to be replaced after
some time, depending on corrosion speed. Therefore, inspection is performed to
identify early signs of failure (Last and Williams, 1991). Inspection is an operation
to discover or assess the condition of an item without altering that condition
(Sherwin, 1999). Often inspection programs are risk based and referred to as risk-
based inspection (RBI) (Andersen et al., 2006). With proper preventive maintenance,
companies can reduce the probabilities of failures in the production system, saving
money in the long term and avoiding further problems.
Subsea development failures may happen in the first stages of production, and often
the causes are found in the design, construction or activities of the installation
(Roberts-Haritonov et al., 2009). Recognizing the threats affecting subsea facilities
could prevent or mitigate their effect. The deterioration of subsea systems will begin
after they are deployed on the seabed. Failures can happen at the component level. For
example, valves can stop working or start leaking, actuators can block, or springs,
connections and sensors can fail. Table I shows some of the factors that could cause
failures in subsea production systems (Energy Institute and Lloyds Register, 2009).
Subsea systems and components are affected by dynamic and static stress,
environmental factors and individual conditions at the geographic location where the
production system is installed. Factors related to the environment and reservoir fluid
(acidity, sand content, temperature, pressure, etc.) may cause deterioration of the
subsea production systems, even though components are designed to work under
extreme conditions. As components deteriorate, breakdowns may occur and, in the
worst case, cause environmental disasters (Eti et al., 2006).
Subsea components
Pipeline headers and pipe work
flowline jumper
Small bore pipework (CS) small
bore pipework (SS)
Valves, instrumented pressure
protection valves, flow control,
isolation, etc.
Hoses, plastic
Flanges, mechanical connectors
(other than flanges)
Umbilical termination units
Umbilical/control jumpers
Subsea control modules
Protective structure, steel
Protective structure, composite
Lids with hinges/locks
Source: Energy Institute and Lloyds Register (2009)
Factors that could cause failures
Subsea
production
Fishing activity, dropped objects, scour, external corrosion systems
Dropped objects, corrosion
Dropped objects, corrosion, malfunction of valve actuation system,
leaks from flanges or mechanical connectors, valves stem seal
131
leaks, damage to position indicators, external corrosion
Malfunction of hoses
Fishing activity, dropped objects, leaks from flanges or mechanical
connectors, corrosion
Fishing activity, dropped objects, leaks from umbilical jumpers
stab plates, including umbilical termination unit, corrosion
Fishing activity, dropped objects
Fishing activity, dropped objects, leaks from umbilical jumpers
stab plates, including umbilical termination unit, corrosion,
malfunction of temperature, pressure sensors, and subsea control
system
Fishing activity, dropped objects, scour, external corrosion
Fishing activity, dropped objects, scour
Fishing activity, dropped objects, external corrosion Table I.
Factors affecting subsea
components

During the design phase, one may identify and analyze potential subsea components
failures and identify critical processes that may represent a great benefit to the project.
The objective is to identify components that will need to be inspected and monitored,
and allocate spare parts and the tools and type of vessels needed for maintenance
interventions. This will enable the management to react faster in the case of a sudden
maintenance intervention.
Components in subsea facilities are designed to work for many years, even without
maintenance. However, over time the system will still often degrade and perhaps fail. Each
component in the subsea system has a mean time between/to failure (MTBF/MTTF). For
example, subsea well control systems have an MTBF of more than 30 years (Byrne, 1994).
Based on the design, the operators expect the system to work reliably without failure for
five years, and plan to carry out preventive maintenance at least every five years.
The components are more likely to fail in the initial phase, as there may be
undiscovered defects (Rausand and Hyland, 2004). Infant mortality is related to failures
during the first period after installation. When the system is installed and working
according to its design, some random failures may occur or unexpected performance
problems may be detected during the testing or normal work conditions. The installation
on the seabed is complex due to transportation, water depth and environmental elements;
underwater flow can cause a hit or shock during deployment on the seafloor.
Therefore, when defining maintenance strategies, it is important to analyze the
factors that could further affect the system during the operational service life. It will be
important to collect and analyze failure data and to identify factors that may influence
system deterioration. Harsh conditions on the seabed, sand, salt and low temperatures
easily affect the installed equipment. Corrosion is often one of the main elements
causing failures over time and has to be prevented.
JQME New technology in the subsea field has improved significantly, and the equipment has
19,2 been designed to resist severe conditions. It is also prepared with high maintainability,
which makes it easier to perform maintenance. Analysis of historical data can help to
determine servicing, condition monitoring and repair. The use of new and more reliable
components allows steady uninterrupted subsea production activities.
Markeset (2010) asserts that: it is almost impossible to design a system that is
132 maintenance-free. Maintenance of subsea systems should allow the system to work
without interruptions due to failures and at the required performance level. For
many systems, preventive maintenance is needed to assure that the systems
functional and reliability performance goals are reached and assured without major
incidents, accidents or disasters.

Maintenance of subsea systems

One of the main subsea operational challenges is to avoid failures. Roberts and
Laing (2002) assert that: experiences of failures in subsea technology have had
a significant impact on both costs and schedule. Maintenance costs are included
in the field exploitation costs, and managers have designed and executed
a maintenance strategy that reduces the need as much as possible for maintenance
in deep water.
The maintenance policy should be complementary and support the business goals
(Bamber et al., 2004). Furthermore, the maintenance strategy should maximize profits
in an organization by maintaining the equipment or rapidly returning it to an
acceptable condition (Mobley, 1990). A maintenance strategy is based on health, safety,
environmental, quality and cost requirements. It is the responsibility of the operators
and all the companies involved to ensure the integrity of people and installations. It has
become one of the main objectives for international companies nowadays to maintain a
good image and reputation worldwide.
The maintenance philosophy should be decided during the design phase, in order to
plan the strategy to procure and contract the vessels, tools and equipment in the
operational phase (Moreno-Trejo and Markeset, 2012). The improvement of components
reliability may reduce maintenance in critical areas (Hadfield and Adamson, 1987). One
may also design functional redundancy. This may postpone corrective maintenance when
a failure occurs and avoid costly downtime. When equipment condition is based on
maintenance, the result is higher availability rates and moderate costs compared with
costs related to production loss or breakdown (Schneider et al., 2006).
Equipment and components are designed for working under certain conditions.
When they are forced to work outside the design parameters they usually fail, causing
partial or complete loss of functions, reducing the process capacity, etc. The damage
type and the significance of the failure will determine how fast the activities for
resolving the problem are carried out by the operator. A failure can be managed more
easily if the functions losses are kept at the unit level (Kelly, 2006). Moreover, the costs
due to deep-water maintenance and modification interventions result in increased
focus on stakeholders expectations about production levels.
Subsea interventions are very expensive due to the use of vessels and specialized
equipment such as ROV and ROT. Due to the high costs associated with deep-water
equipment interventions, it is quite common to evaluate the failure processes before
carrying out compensating maintenance actions. It may be necessary to shut down
part of the production system due to the too high costs of the associated failure. Mainly
there are two costs: the cost of maintaining the component including the vessel costs,
spare parts and personnel, and the loss of production associated with one or more wells Subsea
(Goldsmith et al., 2001). production
According to the failure type, companies can take different decisions about what to
do in the case that they have to maintain degraded components, or to repair or replace systems
faulty components. Most often it is an advantage to perform maintenance on the
component before a failure occurs, if the spare parts are available or can be delivered
quickly, and if the proper vessel for carrying out the work is also available. When 133
equipment is designed, engineers usually test the equipment and do statistical studies
of the main components that are more likely to break down as a result of the
environment and working conditions.
Maintenance strategies may be classified broadly as planned and unplanned.
Unplanned corrective maintenance is used when it is necessary to repair
equipment after an unexpected failure. Sudden system failures are the
consequence when a system begins to work outside the expected performance
without an apparent reason. It could be caused by a component such as a valve,
a component of the control system, an electronic component, etc. or by software
errors. Unplanned corrective maintenance may be very expensive, and it is
therefore preferable that all maintenance and modification activities should be
planned well ahead of time.
Planned maintenance often refers to predetermined periodic preventive maintenance
based on operational use or calendar time, or condition-based maintenance based on
observations through condition monitoring or regular inspection activities (see e.g.
Markeset, 2010). A predetermined periodic preventive (or scheduled) maintenance policy
may reduce the number of failures (Lofsten, 1999). In planned corrective maintenance, the
components are allowed to fail without intervention. The strategy may be used for non-
critical equipment where the consequences of failure are low. Since maintenance at deep-
sea locations is challenging and expensive, this strategy is seldom used for subsea
petroleum installations.
In condition-based maintenance, one plans the maintenance based on observation of
the actual condition of the subsea system through monitoring using sensors,
inspection or testing of the equipment. Components such as valves, control systems,
etc. may be tested from topside to identify malfunction, errors in operation, need for
recalibration, etc.
To monitor the condition and the detection of any abnormal function, information is
collected using sensors such as acoustic control systems, multiphase flow meters,
accelerometers, pressure and temperature sensors, and sand and leak detection
systems, and sometimes detectors for dropped objects (see also ISO 13628-1, 2005).
When the failure occurs, a signal is sent to the control module and interpreted by the
operators, who have the responsibility to verify it.
Condition based maintenance also includes inspection activities using ROVs and
ROTs to respond to the damage caused by, for example, pipeline and flow line
vibration, or corrosion and internal erosion. Generally, the subsea team comprises an
operation controller, a submersible vessel engineer and a pilot, an observer, a winch
operator and a deployment system operator. Personnel are required with knowledge in
electronics, hydraulics and driving the ROVs under certain conditions (Last and
Williams, 1991).
Monitoring the production processes with sensors helps to control the systems and
identify failures so that decisions can be taken opportunely. Often failures may be
detected by using active condition monitoring systems and by analysis of signals from
JQME the subsea control system. Some of the common subsea inspection methods include
19,2 (Last and Williams, 1991):
. Visual inspections: the purpose is to verify the physical state of the equipment
and welds and to look for abnormal conditions around the subsea system.
. Corrosion assessing: the zinc anodes are inspected and replaced when necessary.
134 . Full survey of risers, conductors and caissons: a general evaluation of the
equipment with cameras and sensors. Verifying the proper function of
the equipment or detecting any physical damage.
. A survey of the seabed: accumulation of fragments and rocks in the seabed due to
subsea works or environmental conditions that could cause accidents or delays.
Monitoring and maintenance activities often involve special purpose-built ships and
equipment and may be expensive. All subsea maintenance intervention activities entail
the use of vessels or barges, and in some operations a crane is required (Uyiomendo
and Markeset, 2010). If such as vessel or equipment is needed the costs may increase.
If the vessel is not on a chartered contract with fixed prices, the time before the vessel is
available will be longer (Eriksen et al., 2005).
Subsea maintenance also entails the use of specialized equipment to carry out the
subsea activities underwater and is more expensive than shallow-water interventions.
It also involves high-capital investments as activities in deep-water environments
entail working in extreme conditions, as well as the waiting time needed in operations
with vessels. However, after subsea systems are installed, they have low operational
expenditures (Brandt and Eriksen, 2001).
Usually the operator prepares the subsea activities, scheduling them one year ahead,
taking into account the season, the probability for bad weather, high waves and swells, as
well as programming and discussing with the involved service companies (see e.g.
Uyiomendo and Markeset, 2010). The operators check the recommendations given by the
original equipment manufacturers (OEM). Frequency of maintenance tasks is determined
by experience, judgment and vendor recommendations (Tsang et al., 2000).
The subsea activities planned by the operator will determine the maintenance
strategy carried out by the service companies. The common strategies for maintenance
in subsea facilities are: planned modifications, unplanned corrective maintenance and
planned maintenance (Eriksen et al., 2005). Subsea production systems sometimes need
to be modified to improve, for example, the capacity performance, the control system or
to replace existing components such as valves with more reliable components, etc. (see
e.g. Uyiomendo and Markeset, 2010). Often such modifications are integrated with
planned maintenance activities.
Access to the internet has improved subsea condition monitoring as it allows the
equipment to be monitored 24 hours per day in real time if needed, producing condition
data that can be analyzed and assessed using, for example, statistical tools. By the use
of condition monitoring techniques, the cost can be reduced, the availability improved
and maintenance planned. This allows the operators to be better informed about the
situation at the seabed, to know how the equipment is working, to detect possible
failures and to be prepared to overcome unplanned events. Hence, the use of condition
monitoring has helped to reduce failures and accidents.
Furthermore, the use of e-maintenance (Holmberg et al., 2010) for subsea systems
has supported the activities executed in the field. The installation of sensors to capture
the performance and condition data, as well as the communication equipment to Subsea
transmit the information faster, has meant that new techniques have been developed production
for a better understanding of the process. This allows the managers to gain an
understanding of the real conditions underwater. systems
A case study
The purpose of the study was to map factors causing deterioration of subsea facilities 135
and to identify activities to maintain the subsea systems. As their role in the life cycle
is different, experts employed by the operators and the suppliers were interviewed to
identify the challenges, strategies and viewpoints.
The study consisted of a survey based on face-to-face interviews to obtain
information about the maintenance strategies used in individual companies. The
questionnaire contained specific questions to obtain personal experiences from the
area, such as the type of maintenance strategies applied in the organization, factors
affecting installations, major components failing in the system, etc. The same
questionnaire was used for all the participants to maintain consistency.
The interviews lasted between one and two hours. In some companies the data
collection was carried out one person at a time and other companies decided to gather
two, three or four specialists at the same time in order to answer or discuss the same
question considering their individual experience. The answers and discussions
validate the information.
Ten experts from eight companies were interviewed (i.e. five experts from three
operator companies, one expert from each of three manufacturing companies and two
experts from the inspection, maintenance and repair (IMR) service providers). The experts
interviewed had between six and 33 years of work experience in the O&G industry in
positions such as director, project manager and senior engineer. Seven companies were
located in Norway and one expert in a company was interviewed in the UK.
The core businesses of the companies participating included:
. O&G operators and buyers of subsea systems: specification of requirements
related to design, manufacturing, installation, testing, operation, maintenance
and recycling.
. OEM of subsea systems: manufacturing of main subsea components, providing
spare parts, performing maintenance in workshops, supplying field engineers
and specialists, supplying diagnostics services, etc.
. IMR service providers: responsible for vessels to carry out the IMR of subsea
equipment. They are also often responsible for the installation of the subsea
systems, as well as getting tools used in the IMR service operations/installations
designed and manufactured. The tool design and manufacturing is often
performed by specialist companies or the subsea system OEM.

Case study findings

The strategies to design, build, install and maintain subsea installations vary
according to the operators philosophy, regional and geographical issues, national
legislation, etc. The strategy is established based on the project scope and individual
preferences. An employee of a supplier company said that in some countries they are
just requested to supply the main equipment the tie-in or additional components are
bought from a different supplier. However, in some regions they supply the subsea
JQME equipment and also the components needed to connect the equipment to the subsea
19,2 production system.

Maintenance in the design phase

As the cost of maintenance, inspection, repair or modification interventions are very
high, subsea production systems are overdesigned and made robust enough to work
136 under extreme conditions for 20 to 30 years. The systems are built in modules that
can easily be replaced and taken to the suppliers workshop, where they may
be refurnished, repaired or recycled. To reduce the number of operational failures, the
operators establish inspection campaigns to check the critical components most likely
to fail as the result of wearing out.
For some systems and components, one adopts a maintenance and/or modification
strategy. To identify which components need to be verified and inspected, the subsea
systems and components are analyzed and classified according to criticality in the
design phase. Components that need larger repairs are also identified. It is important to
analyze the impact of failures in power umbilicals and to pay attention to control
modules, as they can be critical. Furthermore, it is important to estimate how fast
a possible failure can be fixed to reduce the downtime.
The operators establish the system specifications and requirements to the
maintenance strategy (e.g. operability, loads, execution plan, schedule, etc.) in the
FEED study, and also specify requirements for designing the integrity management
system suited to the individual subsea system. Based on the FEED study, they
compare solutions or new technology and identify benefits for each solution.
Furthermore, they analyze maintenance costs prior to selecting the strategy. The
operators often prefer proven and less costly solutions rather than developing costly
and untested prototypes.
The equipment manufacturers role is to propose, design, manufacture and deliver
equipment or new technology based on the operators requirements and preferences. The
manufacturer should demonstrate the advantages/disadvantages of various solutions and
the reliability, availability, maintainability and supportability analysis; the manufacturer
should also demonstrate the advantages/disadvantages and the costs and benefit analysis
for each design solution and each maintenance strategy. After discussing and questioning
the alternative solutions with the manufacturer, the operators select the best overall
solution, taking into account the equipment.
Since the maintenance activities are often delivered by a specialist IMR service
provider, the use, availability and cost of the intervention vessels and maintenance
tools will be taken into account. In that process, input and discussions with the IMR
service provider will also be included. In addition, international standards, regional
governmental and corporate policies are considered.
In general, the goal of the maintenance strategy is to extend the operational life of the
equipment, extend the interval between preventive maintenance and/or failures, and
minimize the maintenance and/or restoration time. Each of the companies establishes
project teams that work on the alternative solutions. The teams communicate regularly
with the operator to provide further input and carry out discussions on how to proceed.
It is important to consider the quality and reliability of the systems over the lifetime
and to fulfill the international standards and corporate procedures. The company will
have had good and bad experiences with different systems, and it is essential to also
consider their own experience in the process and their experience with similar
equipment. To design and develop maintenance methods, the operator considers the
likelihood of failures by using data from the Offshore Reliability Data database for the Subsea
different systems and kinds of systems. Furthermore, the result of condition monitoring production
is used to decide the maintenance activities. For example, if a component could fail
every five years, it may not be changed every five years, but monitored. The availability systems
of spare parts is also considered.

Spare parts 137

Specifications given by the OEM and statistics about failures are useful for deciding
the maintenance strategies and for selecting spare parts. Critical spare parts should
be kept in stock since storage may be cheaper than the cost of long downtime due
to lack of spare parts.
During the procurement, the manufacturers usually offer a package of subsea
spare parts that, according to their analysis, are more likely to fail due to wear,
degradation or other failure causes. Components that often fail need to be kept in stock,
but the spare parts also represent storage and inventory costs. Some companies have
special agreements with suppliers for holding the main spare parts in their stock.
When planning the maintenance, one needs to check whether the components are
available in stock. Not all the components are in stock and certain spare parts can take
half a year to obtain. Another problem is obsolescence of components especially in the
control systems. In that case one needs to analyze whether the system should be
substituted. Decisions are taken based on the field life cycle analysis for recent years.
Some new subsea systems are compatible with older systems installed.
The scope of the maintenance plan is to identify and program activities based on the
technical risks, resources, roles, responsibilities and individual milestones to complete
the work according to the schedule. The interventions using vessels are expensive.
Therefore, the decision to replace a component is not taken before the monitoring
system detects that the component is not working properly.

Maintenance intervention and support services

Maintenance contracts are established one to two years ahead of when they are needed.
Maintenance activities are planned based on the vendors recommendations or the
suppliers specifications. Factors such as weather in the region and the water depth are
analyzed to decide the use of divers or ROVs. The vessel planned for use needs to have
lifting arrangements in order to have access to the subsea system and to carry out the
maintenance program. Furthermore, the tools needed during the subsea intervention
must be on the vessel and ready to be used.
Furthermore, when planning subsea operations one needs to consider the weather
forecast and seasonal climate. Work can be carried out during the winter, but it is often
preferable to wait for a suitable weather window if possible to avoid downtime in certain
seasons. The influence of the weather varies according to the geographic location. In the
North Sea, carry out maintenance during the summer is preferred due to the harsh
climatic conditions during the winter. In the Gulf of Mexico, the maintenance could be
carried out all year round, but most often the subsea work program is modified in the
hurricane season from June to November in collaboration with the operator, service
companies, weather forecasting authorities, etc. In some years, more hurricanes are
expected, resulting in a need to modify the maintenance programs.
The operators make estimations about the availability of vessels to carry out the
maintenance interventions during the summer, as it is avoided during the winter, since
bad weather could impact the planned activities. The pre-established frame agreement
JQME contracts for IMR are verified. If a vessel is not available, additional evaluations are
19,2 performed. Existing frame agreements regarding e.g. diving/diverless operations,
ROVs, etc. help to reduce the time required to find and establish contracts with
suppliers. The suppliers should analyze the availability of tools and spare parts based
on costs and schedules. Thereafter, equipment, tools and spare parts are delivered to
the intervention vessel contracted by the operator.
138 Intervention vessels and equipment are needed to perform preventive and
corrective maintenance activities, as well as inspections and modifications.
Operators most often sign agreements and contracts with service companies
specializing in subsea intervention in order to have vessels, equipment and spare
parts ready for preventive maintenance activities.
Also, unexpected failures should be included in the strategy and agreements.
Unplanned subsea maintenance requiring intervention vessels and tools may prove
costly unless it is already in the contract. Therefore, the operators usually have frame
agreements with selected vessels contractors in the case of something unexpected
occurring in their subsea facilities, to assure quality and the schedule, as well as to
reduce risks related to the subsea interventions. In order to get vessels fast, tools and
spare parts need to be ready to use in the field. The contracts specifications may vary
according to the strategy of each operator. If the operator has to wait for available
intervention vessels, the cost of shortening the waiting time may be very high. Price
negotiations should be carried out before beginning the offshore activities.
To reduce the cost of the intervention vessels, companies generate simulation
models to quantify mobilizations, interventions, preventive and corrective
maintenance and even the stopping of activities caused by weather disruptions.
This helps in reducing costs when contracts are made and ensuring the availability of
vessels during operations.
Furthermore, the operators are responsible for programming activities offshore and
contracting specialized IMR vessels to perform offshore operations. The IMR service
providers transport, install, carry out commissioning activities, inspect and provide
maintenance to subsea production systems. They interact with other suppliers and
service providers to carry out specialized interventions in the field. Therefore, the IMR
vessel communicates with the other parties in the offshore process, such as the
operator, who is the assets owner, the equipments manufacturers and the companies
contracted to develop certain specialized activities related to the development of wells
or companies developing special tools or processes.
Normally the equipment should have a backup system in case of failures. If the
subsea equipment is degraded, it is preferable to maintain the equipment on the
seabed. However, if this is not possible, the equipment should be brought back to the
OEMs workshop for repair, overhaul or maintenance to refurbish it to the same
condition as when it was new. Similarly, the subsea equipment may have to be taken to
the manufacturers onshore facilities for maintenance if the intervention is going to
take a long time.
Typical activities performed from the intervention vessel include:
. test pressure on high-integrity components to ensure that they work properly;
. test and verify control modules or electronic devices;
. test and verify subsea valves;
. perform self-check of control systems, monitor the subsea system and get sensor
feedback to verify that they are working properly;
 . verify the hydraulic power units (HPU), subsea controls, filter controls; and Subsea
. test and verify that choke valves are working properly. production
Subsea inspection campaigns are also carried out using ROVs and special equipment systems
designed for high pressures and low temperatures and considering the type of subsea
equipment to be inspected (e.g. pipelines, pigging operations, free span surveys,
structures, umbilicals, risers, templates, etc.). RBI technology is often used to decide 139
where and how to inspect. After the inspections, the results are brought back to the
OEMs experts who will analyze the potential failures and give advice to the operators.
Inspection without the use of divers in fields located in deeper water has made for
more complex interventions. Hence, the strategy to carry out integrity programs using
ROVs, autonomous underwater vehicles or ROTs has become increasingly important
in the field development to verify the state of equipment.
ROVs facilitate subsea interventions as they can easily be maneuvered and
controlled. Through the use of ROVs, the IMR service provider deploys equipment,
replaces components, performs light construction, carries out the scale squeeze
process, operates valves, and performs cleaning campaigns, visual inspections, etc.
ROVs are deployed from a platform or a vessel and are controlled remotely. New
vessels often use two ROVs: one for remote inspection and observation and the other
for executing maintenance works. However, the ROVs need to be maneuvered carefully
to avoid collisions and hitting the equipment during operations causing, for example,
ROV electronic measuring devices to need re-calibrating.
Typical activities performed by the use of ROVs include:
. inspect pipelines, joints, production lines and flow lines;
. inspect components with instrumentation and moving parts (e.g. subsea control
modules, interconnecting housing, high-integrity items, stuck valves, safety shut
down valves, pipeline routing cleaning using a pig, sacrificial valves);
. carry out subsea surveillances and look for free spans, structures damaged due
to fishing activities and hook up;
. perform inspection surveys on cathodic protections, chokes, multiphase meters;
and
. identify new corrosion locations and monitor existing corrosion locations on the
subsea structures.
The process of deploying equipment is one core activity for IMR vessels. Some
equipment contains electronic components (e.g. the subsea control system) that are
sensitive to external forces. Electronic devices for measuring have to be treated
carefully; if, for example, the ROV controller hits the equipment during operations, it
may need to be recalibrated. Therefore, one of the IMR activities is to study the risks of
lifting subsea equipment and the capabilities of the cranes. The use of active heave
compensated cranes, deck skidding systems and module handling systems, has helped
to optimize offshore operations and reduce stoppages of activities due to bad weather
and too much ship motion.
The hazard and operability study (HAZOP) is one of the tools used to identify
operational risks during intervention. This is a technique for identifying hazards and
possible operating problems during the process. The deviations, risks, unexpected
issues, consequences, etc. of the analysis are evaluated by experts. When a subsea
JQME intervention operation is concluded, they use the lessons-learned system to identify
19,2 and document issues, events, factors, etc. that may influence future subsea operations.
This is used for training the vessel crew in subsea operations. Communication between
the operator, the OEM and the service provider is essential to carry out successful
maintenance interventions.

140 Discussion and concluding remarks

Webb (1981) reported that maintenance strategies for petroleum production platforms
were produced as an afterthought. Since then, major accidents and the development in
maintenance knowledge have propelled improvements in design and maintenance
practices. The BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Macondo petroleum field in the
Mexican Gulf in 2010 (Brewer and McKeeman, 2011; Visser, 2011) has similarly created a
focus on the importance of subsea production systems design, operation, maintenance
and support services as well as regulations of subsea activities, environmental
protection, disaster prevention, disaster response, oil spill cleanup, etc.
In 2008, the American Petroleum Institute published the API recommended
practice (API RP 17N, 2009) for subsea production system reliability and technical
risk management, which provides a structured approach which organizations can
adopt to manage this uncertainty throughout the life of a project. They state that
the recommendations may be applied to the management of general project risk
through to the identification and removal of potential failure modes in particular
equipment. However, much still remains to be done to improve the practices and to
avoid large disasters.
Subsea production systems are costly to design, operate and maintain, and even
though the systems are designed robustly, they occasionally fail. To operate subsea
production systems in a safe and cost-efficient way and avoiding costly downtime, the
systems need to be inspected, tested, monitored, maintained and occasionally repaired,
upgraded or modified. With the assistance of the OEM suppliers and service providers,
the subsea production system operators should identify alternatives to carry out
preventive and corrective maintenance before the system exploitation phase begins in
order to plan individual maintenance activities.
Frame agreements with qualified service providers and suppliers are often
established and challenges focus on reducing the possibility of failures in subsea
production systems during the field life cycle. Operators and suppliers maintenance
strategies vary, considering their individual objectives. However, they share the same
commitment with the use of quality components and services, as any equipment
failures could cause enormous O&G disasters. The subsea equipment installed on the
seabed may robustly designed to work without the need of major maintenance in the
field life cycle. However, experience from previous projects shows that components still
need to be inspected, monitored, serviced, repaired or replaced in order to maintain the
integrity of the installations.

References
Andersen, T.M., Thuestad, L. and Thorstensen, T.A. (2006), RAPID: a new approach for
improved regularity and decreased maintenance costs, The Proceedings of Offshore
Technology Conference, OTC2006, Houston, TX, May 1-4.
API RP 17N (2009), American petroleum institute recommended practice 17N, Recommended
Practice for Subsea Production System Reliability and Technical Risk Management,
Washington, DC.
Bamber, C.J., Sharp, J.M. and Castka, P. (2004), Third party assessment: the role of the Subsea
maintenance function in an integrated management system, Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 26-36. production
Brandt, H. and Eriksen, R. (2001), RAM analysis for deepwater subsea developments, The systems
Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, OTC2001, Houston, TX, April 30-May 3.
Brewer, L. and McKeeman, R. (2011), Deepwater Gulf of Mexico development in a post-Macondo
world, OTC21945, The Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference, OTC2011, 141
Houston, TX, May 2-5.
Byrne, S. (1994), Subsea well control systems the specification of reliability, availability and
maintainability, The Proceedings of the International Underwater Technology
Conference, UTC1994, London, April 20-21.
Energy Institute and Lloyds Register (2009), Guidelines for the Management of Integrity of
Subsea Facilities, Energy Institute, London, p. 44.
Eriksen, R., Gustavsson, F. and Anthonsen, H. (2005), Developing an intervention, maintenance,
and repair strategy for Ormen Lange, The Proceedings of the Offshore Europe
Conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE96751, Aberdeen, September 6-9.
Esaklul, K.A. and Ahmed, T.M. (2009), Prevention of failures of high strength fasteners in use
in offshore and subsea applications, Journal of Engineering Failure Analysis, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 1195-1202.
Eti, M.C., Ogaji, S.O.T. and Probert, S.D. (2006), Strategic maintenance management in Nigerian
industries, Journal of Applied Energy, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 211-227.
Goldsmith, R., Eriksen, R., Childs, M., Saucier, B. and Deegan, F. (2001), Lifecycle cost of
deepwater production systems, The Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference,
OTC2001, Houston, TX, April 30-May 3.
Hadfield, P.E. and Adamson, S.M. (1987), An overview of current projects in the field of diverless
subsea production systems, The Proceedings of the Submersible Technology,
SUBTECH1987, Aberdeen, November 10-12.
Holmberg, K., Adgar, A., Arnaiz, A., Jantunen, E., Mascolo, J. and Mekid, S. (2010), E-maintenance.
ISBN 978-1-84996-204-9, 1st ed., Springer, London.
ISO 13628-1 (2005), Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries Design and Operation of Subsea
Production Systems Part 1: General Requirements and Recommendations, 2nd ed., ISO,
Geneva, available at: www.iso.org (accessed April 29, 2013).
Kelly, A. (2006), Strategic Maintenance Planning, Elsevier, Amsterdam, p. 91.
Kumar, R. and Kumar, U. (2004), A conceptual framework for the development of a service
delivery strategy for industrial systems and products, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 310-319.
Last, G. and Williams, P. (1991), An Introduction to ROV Operations, Oilfield Publications,
Ledbury, p. 107.
Lofsten, H. (1999), Management of industrial maintenance economic evaluation of
maintenance policies, Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 7,
pp. 716-737.
Markeset, T. (2010), Design for performance: review of current research in Norway, The
Proceedings of Condition Monitoring and Diagnostic Engineering Management,
COMADEM2010, Nara, June 28-July 2.
Mobley, R.K. (1990), An Introduction to Predictive Maintenance, van Nostrand Reinhold,
Princeton, NJ.
Moreno-Trejo, J. and Markeset, T. (2012), Mapping factors influencing the selection of subsea
petroleum production systems, Advances in Production Management Systems,
JQME Value Networks: Innovation, Technologies, and Management, IFIP Advances in Information
and Communication Technology Volume 384, pp. 242-250, Paper presented at The
19,2 International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems, APMS2011,
Stavanger, Norway, September 26-28.
Moreno-Trejo, J., Kumar, R. and Markeset, T. (2012), Mapping factors influencing the selection of
subsea petroleum production systems: a case study, International Journal of System
Assurance Engineering and Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 6-16.
142
NORSOK standard Z-008 (2011), Risk based maintenance and consequence classification,
Rev. 3, June, available at: www.standard.no/en/Sectors/Petroleum/NORSOK-Standard-
Categories/Z-Regularity--Criticality/Z-0082/ (accessed, March 4, 2012).
Rausand, M. and Hyland, A. (2004), System Reliability Theory, John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Roberts, C. and Laing, T. (2002), Achieving reliability improvement for subsea challenges, The
Proceedings of the Subsea Controls and Data Acquisition Conference (SCADA 2002),
Paris, June 13-14, pp. 101-110.
Roberts-Haritonov, C., Robertson, N. and Strutt, J. (2009), The design of subsea production
systems for reliability and availability, The Proceedings of the Offshore Technology
Conference, OTC2009, Houston, TX, May 4-7.
Schneider, J., Gaul, A., Neumann, C., Hografer, J., Wellbow, W., Schwan, M. and Schnettler, A.
(2006), Asset management techniques, International Journal of Electrical Power &
Energy Systems, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 643-654.
Sherwin, D.J. (1999), Age-based opportunity maintenance, Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 221-235.
Sherwin, D.J. (2000), A review of overall models for maintenance management, Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 138-164.
Tsang, A.H.C., Jardine, A.K.S., Campbell, J.D. and Picknell, J.V. (2000), Reliability Centred
Maintenance: A Key to Maintenance Excellence, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Uyiomendo, E.E. and Markeset, T. (2010), Subsea maintenance service delivery: mapping
factors influencing scheduled service duration, special section on maintenance and safety
management in process plants, International Journal of Automation and Computing
(IJAC), Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 167-172.
Vinnem, J.E., Bye, R., Gran, B.A., Kongsvik, T., Nyheim, O.M., Okstad, E.H., Seljelid, J. and Vatn, J.
(2012), Risk modeling of maintenance work on major process equipment on offshore
petroleum installations, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 274-292.
Visser, R.C. (2011), Offshore accidents, regulations and industry standards, The proceedings of
the SPE Western North American Region Meeting, ISBN 978-1-61399-120-6, SPE144011,
Anchorage, AK, 7-11th May DOI: 10.2118/144011-MS.
Webb, G.D. (1981), Inspection and repair of oil and gas production installations in deep water,
Journal of Ocean Management, Vol. 7 Nos 1-4, pp. 313-326.

About the authors

Tore Markeset is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering (Operations and Maintenance) at the
University of Stavanger and Adjunct Professor in Operation and Maintenance at University of
Troms, both in Norway. He received a BSc degree in Petroleum Engineering from the University
of Stavanger in 1985 and BSc and MSc degrees in Mechanical Engineering from the
University of Minnesota, USA in 1989 and 1991 respectively. After working in the industry for a
number of years within process, mechanical and reservoir engineering, he attained a PhD degree
in Offshore Engineering Operations and Maintenance from the University of Stavanger.
His research interests include: industrial services (product support, innovation, strategy
development, sourcing strategies, contractual relationship performance, subsea services, etc.) Subsea
and industrial asset management (operations, maintenance and support management, design for
performance and production performance management). He has published more than 100 peer
production
reviewed papers in international journals and conference proceedings. Tore Markeset is the systems
corresponding author and can be contacted at: Tore.Markeset@uis.no
Jorge Moreno-Trejo has been an employee of PEMEX Exploracion y Produccion since 1991.
He received a Bachelor degree in Industrial and Electronic Engineering and a Masters degree in 143
Planning and Regional Development from Instituto Tecnologico de Veracruz and from Instituto
Tecnologico de Merida in 1995 and 2001 respectively, and a Masters degree in Business
Administration from Universidad Autonoma del Carmen and Tulane University in 2004. He
received a PhD in Offshore Engineering (specialization in industrial asset management) from the
University of Stavanger, Norway, in 2012. His research interests include subsea technology
manufacturing, installation, operation and maintenance, sourcing and contractual strategies, as
well as industrial services.
Rajesh Kumar is working in the oil and gas industry and is an Associate Researcher at the
University of Stavanger. He obtained an MSc degree in Mining Engineering from Kyrgyzstan
(Former USSR) in 1996. After working in the Indian mining industry for four years, he obtained a
Licentiate degree in Operation and Maintenance from Lulea University of Technology, Lulea,
Sweden in 2003 and a PhD in Offshore Technology Industrial Asset Management, from the
University of Stavanger 2006. He has more than 15 years of experience from the mining and the
oil and gas industry. His research interests include operation and maintenance management and
industrial services. He has published more than 20 papers in peer reviewed journals and
conference proceedings.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints