See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254520015

SS:Geohazard Risk Assessment-Pipeline integrity in geohazard prone seabed

terrain - what is the real risk?

Article · May 2009

DOI: 10.4043/20206-MS

CITATIONS READS

0 52

1 author:

James Nicholls
Mann Isle Geoscience Ltd
6 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by James Nicholls on 25 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

OTC 20206

Pipeline integrity in geohazard prone seabed terrain: - what is the real risk?
James Nicholls, Flintshire Geophysics

Copyright 2009, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 4–7 May 2009.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract

Geohazard features can now be mapped in great detail to all required water depth as a routine and mature task for the design
and installation of submarine pipelines. The perceived risk associated with some of these highly characteristic morphological
and geotechnical phenomena remains however a combination of quantitative modelling and engineering judgement.

This note references examples of several deepwater long distance pipeline projects in which geohazard has played a dominant
factor in the assessment of risk to the pipeline, and revisits the application of engineering geohazard assessment to pipeline
routeing and design. Geohazard in this context is limited to geological process at or near seabed that could result in
catastrophic damage and loss of containment.

Introduction

Project’s requiring the design of a pipeline system that traverse’s coast margin shelf, slope and deepwater basin, will encounter
a range of ‘normally’ expected and generally well understood geological terrain, each of which will include characteristic
process and features at the seabed presenting potential risk to pipeline integrity. Pipeline engineering in deepwater therefore
requires an early and authoritative appreciation of the regional setting for route selection, in support of key decisions regarding
project concept, feasibility and investment
The observations and opinions discussed below are from the author’s experiences both in the engineering supervision of
geohazard specialists and as Project Management Team advisor on engineering geoscience and survey aspects for deepwater
pipeline design.

Base Data

The overall bathymorphological configuration of coastal shelf, slope and abyssal plain for long distance pipelines is initially
established from public domain bathymetry, generally satellite derived data (approaching 1 km resolution) and maritime
navigation charts. Mature area development projects locally benefit from high quality exploration derived bathymetry data as a
starting point (normally better than 100m resolution). In certain areas of high academic and industry funded research interest,
we may be fortunate to access reconnaissance survey grade bathymetry data (typically 30 m resolution) including geophysical
data and geological cores with regional interpretation.

During the subsequent Engineering Design phases, the resolution and fidelity of the seabed imagery and quantitative
description improves to a point at which confidence in the final assessment of risk to the physical and economic security of the
pipeline can be validated. However, it remains the careful and considered planning of initial route geometry and provision for
alternatives at the project feasibility level which governs overall efficiency of engineering effort and the most appropriate final
design alignment.
2 OTC 20206

Project organisation

As a background to the practical assessment of geohazard risk to pipeline integrity, an overview of a well developed typical
design phase and organisation is summarised, with particular reference to long distance gas transmission pipelines.

Conceptual

A project concept commonly is triggered as an operator management response to market and political predictions and is
frequently manifested as a ‘urgent’ need for a first estimate of maximum water depth and route length from nominally selected
landfall to landfall. For long distance transmission of gas to market by a multi-partner/nation joint venture or consortium (the
most common scenario), a dedicated Project Management Team is then assembled to review legal, finance and engineering
implications. In the structured environment of a major oil & gas operator, this team is drawn from existing well established
and pre-qualified resources, commonly on a part-time or multi-tasking basis, while in the more speculative gas transmission
pipeline projects, the available expertise is more commonly comprised of engineering consultants, under the direction of a
senior Manager seconded from the owner / partners as a necessity.

With the confirmation of a ‘conceptual route’, the preparation of a Desk Study report will describe the seabed morphology to a
level sufficient to plan the subsequent reconnaissance survey field campaign. The Desk Study will include public domain
bathymetry information at a resolution adequate for selecting a route compliant with first level engineering requirements (main
coastal slopes, political and socio-environmental boundaries). The Desk Study should also comprehensively reference
academic and research organisations with any relevant information to assist in identifying geological processes potentially
active within the project area. A Desk Study may be contracted to a specialist Engineering Design consultancy, or commonly
by a consultant engineer supervised ‘in house’ by the Project Management Team.

Feasibility and pre-FEED

Feasibility studies and Pre-FEED (Front End Engineering Design) are performed by a specialist Engineering Design
consultancy, contacted to specify, scope and supervise the acquisition of a project specific Reconnaissance Survey. The
objective for this phase is clearly to expand on the Desk Study recommendations for a preferred route, to that of a ‘Base Case’
and to propose potential alternative routes.

The Pre-FEED scope of work will include a Preliminary Geohazard Assessment utilising the results of the Reconnaissance
survey, and most critically, a review of Reconnaissance survey data as it is acquired. This ‘near real-time’ review and
evaluation of seabed data is without doubt potentially the most important element of the pre-FEED phase, and must be
supervised by an experienced engineering geoscientist with sufficient seniority to report and recommend directly to the Project
Management Team.

Reconnaissance survey design must include sufficient contingency for the evaluation of route alternatives and elaboration of
‘regional scale’ morphology of potential geohazard significance. The Reconnaissance survey for deepwater route sections
(greater than nominally 500 m water depth) will suffer from increasingly poorer resolution and bathymetry data density, but
with correct specification of acquisition technique, data will be sufficient for confident identification of the constraining
geohazard features and for appropriate ‘Base Case’ route design with alternatives.

FEED

FEED is contracted to a specialist Engineering Design consultancy, not necessarily as a continuation of the pre-FEED, and
will include all engineering tasks required to confirm compliance with design code, all facilities and materials required,
optimum installation techniques and budgeted costs to complete the project. Included in this phase will be the Detailed survey,
which will be designed to provide all input required to define seabed bathymorphology and soils character for pipeline design.
The Detailed survey scope will principally be focused on a narrow installation corridor centred on the ‘Base Case ‘ route
alignment confirmed by pre-FEED, but must include any areas of potential geohazard concern not resolved by the
Reconnaissance survey campaign. From the FEED phase will come a complete Risk Assessment, supported by a Pipeline
Integrity Assessment, modelled from results of authoritative and peer reviewed Geohazard evaluation.

Detail Design and Installation

By Detail Design and installation phases, any update to pipeline integrity risk comes from minor route changes within the
Detail survey corridor, as optimisation to span intervention.
OTC 20206 3

Geohazard: engineer’s perspective

Contrary to the expectations offered by the high quality of contemporary survey methods and technology, problems do occur
in fully appreciating the geohazard significance of seabed features and potentially elevated risk to pipeline integrity.

Route selection difficulties

Survey resolution

A correctly specified Reconnaissance survey campaign will provide a minimum 30 x 30 m resolution (gridded bin density),
high accuracy bathymetry to the required maximum required water depth (nominal 3000 m). Unfortunately in some recent
cases, reconnaissance survey data (at pre-FEED phase) has been treated simply as a confirmation of the Desk Study
bathymetry model. The Reconnaissance survey is an opportunity to acquire a wide area interpretation of regional
bathymorphology, not necessarily restricted to a ‘design corridor’, and will confidently define those parts of the project area
that have suffered, or are capable of significant seabed movement or sediment flow.

Data density

The acceptance of route for design is based on well defined and industry generated criteria and codes. However, since the
advent of reliable, high resolution, high production rate AUV based bathymetry data, there is a tendency for the pipeline
engineer to expect uniform, maximum achievable data density before undertaking an analysis of predicted pipeline spans. For
the route selection process, (carried out within the reconnaissance ‘Design Corridor’) it is vital to have an early screening of
seabed ‘roughness’ for spans predicted to exceed the design allowable length, in parallel with the more subjective and time
consuming geohazard evaluation. At Detail Design phase there is locally a need for maximum data density, (1 x 1 m) but
restricted to regions of high and rapidly varying seabed relief, (nearshore, shelf and slope margins) easily defined by more
generally acquired AUV or deep tow sensor based detail survey density. (3 x 3 m).

Regional process

Assessment of geohazard risk and impact on an optimised route is restricted by a lack of understanding of regional geological
process, and remains a difficulty encountered by design engineers working in highly variable and dynamic coast approach and
slope areas.

To improve understanding and ensure the incorporation of all elements into the Route Selection process, it is generally seen as
essential for the Project Management Team to initiate and monitor the continuous review of geological interpretation and
geohazard significance of survey data at all acquisition phases. This is best achieved in a ‘Workshop’ forum, particularly
during a Detaiiled survey phase, where contractor interpretation geophysicist and geologist can update and interact regularly
with the pipeline engineer and geohazard specialist responsible for pipeline routeing and risk assessment. This is in addition to
the ‘near real-time’ review of survey data by the engineer as it is acquired, and serves a focus for developing ‘peer reviewed’
and documented geohazard scenario and inventory of geohazard risk for the design alignment.

Conclusion

The integrity of a deepwater, long distance pipeline is ultimately controlled by the mechanical properties of the installed
pipeline and the appropriate modelling of frequency and applied forces from a ‘catastrophic’ geohazard event. The pipeline
engineering design and installation methods in deepwater are rigorously calculated, tested and can be validated against codes
and procedures.
In recent examples, the modelled occurrence frequency for landslide, debris flow and subsequent turbidity current have
considerably exceeded ‘industry’ codes and guidelines for ‘acceptable’ risk. In these cases, the ‘workshop’ review has
provided an early appreciation of ‘real risk’, in terms of sediment failure mode, rheology and ability for the pipeline to
mechanically withstand displacement and/or flow around the pipe. An additional benefit of a geohazard workshop
environment is the opportunity for benchmarking against other comparable project design in a confidential environment.
But the risk potentially presented to pipeline integrity by an inappropriately selected pipeline route remains as ‘real’ and far
more difficult to measure. (See Figure 1)
4 OTC 20206

Figure 1 Example reconnaissance survey bathymetry data and a FEED pipeline route (30 x 30 m grid resolution)
(Confidential source, within the last 5 years)

View publication stats