IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- National security of the Russian
Current methods of subsea production systems Federation in the Arctic region: geopolitical
challenges and strategic decisions
survey in the conditions of the Arctic region S V Kulik, E V Travkina, A S Fedorov et al.

- Ecological risk analysis as a key factor in

environmental safety system development
To cite this article: E Smirnov and U Kharchenko 2021 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 1201 012055 in the Arctic region of the Russian
Federation
Y A Bolsunovskaya and L M
Bolsunovskaya

- Technology for Subsea 3D Printing

View the article online for updates and enhancements. Structures for Oil and Gas Production in
Arctic Region
H N Musipov, V S Nikitin and L N
Bakanovskaya

This content was downloaded from IP address 209.242.207.66 on 24/11/2021 at 06:22

COTech & OGTech 2021 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1201 (2021) 012055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1201/1/012055

Current methods of subsea production systems survey in the

conditions of the Arctic region

E Smirnov and U Kharchenko.

National University of Oil and Gas "Gubkin University" (Gubkin University), Russia

*
Contact E-mails: egorsmirnovj@gmail.com, doc.2004.8@yandex.ru

Abstract. The development of deposits in the Arctic region and the Far Eastern shelf of Russia is
complicated by the presence of ice conditions. The duration of the ice period can vary from 5 up to
9 months, during which the underwater equipment of the field is inaccessible for inspection and
repair. This work discusses the methods of inspection and maintenance of subsea production systems
that can be used in the development of Arctic deposits.

1. Introduction
The largest volume of hydrocarbons from Russia's offshore fields is concentrated in the Arctic and Okhotsk
shelf. This region is characterized by extreme weather and climatic conditions, the presence of ice, and the
distance from the coast to the fields can vary from tens to hundreds of kilometers.
The most suitable option for the development of hydrocarbons under such conditions is the use of a
subsea production system (SPS), since it is less dependent on weather conditions and the presence of ice.
Special requirements related to the uniqueness of the area, as well as its remoteness, require attention to
increase safety, reliability, and reduce response time and the cost of underwater surveillance and inspection.
At the moment, in Russian practice, in the event of a failure of underwater equipment during the ice period,
the start of repair work is postponed until the release of the water area from the ice.
Operating companies manage kilometers of subsea pipelines and other assets that require inspection,
maintenance, and/or repair to prevent operational and environmental hazards and production losses.
Underwater surveillance and inspection, as the key component within an integrity management system, is
a proactive approach in identifying areas of improvement or noncompliance. In addition to regulatory
requirements, a well-designed subsea inspection plan benefits operator by increasing the confidence in
subsea equipment and system reliability [1]. Main underwater surveillance and inspection tasks of SPS
facilities and pipelines include:
• Visual inspection (general and close)
• Wall thickness inspection; for example, using Ultrasonic Testing (UT)
• Cathodic Protection measurements (CP)
• Non-destructive testing, such as ultrasonic testing (UT), electromagnetic testing (ET)
• Mapping using side-scan sonars and laser bathymetry
• Leak detection
• Environmental monitoring
• Valve and torque tool operations
• Cleaning and removal of marine life
• Chemical injection
• Maintenance and repair
This paper reviews the main approaches for inspection and maintenance of subsea production system
equipment, moreover, the main challenges for application of robotic systems, such as remotely operated
vehicles (ROVs) and autonomous underwater vehicles AUVs are considered in the conditions of the Arctic
region, more generally in the presence of ice. The main challenges of this region are the following:
• the duration of the ice period is from 5 to 9 months
• the need to use vessels that have an Arctic category that allows them to operate in ice conditions
• high risk of breaking the ROV cable when working in ice, due to the low reliability of existing
methods of holding the vessel at the point when exposed to drifting ice fields;
• the remoteness of existing bases for the placement of repair equipment and ship bases.

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
COTech & OGTech 2021 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1201 (2021) 012055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1201/1/012055

• the use of divers is limited

2. Monitoring and inspection

In the Oil and Gas industry the required reliability performance of subsea equipment has a significant
impact on CAPEX (due to high level of design complexity, reliability and conservatism) and OPEX (due
to need of periodic inspection intervention replacement and repair), in particular for remote deep-water
areas.
Production performance objectives can be achieved by Operators only defining a proper inspection,
maintenance & repair strategy (IMR)to verify the state of subsea asset which usually requires robotic
systems such as remotely operated vehicle or autonomous underwater vehicle to carry out integrity
assessment [2]. Example of remotely operated vehicle is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Remotely operated vehicles.

Monitoring and inspection of assets can be divided in several main stages:
1. Monitoring of technological parameters;
2. Surveillance and inspection of SPS using robotic systems;
3. Maintenance and repair;
4. Forming the necessary set off spare parts.

2.1. Monitoring of technological parameters

The first step in integrity assessment is to monitor technological parameters. The SCADA system is used
for technological parameters’ monitoring and allows continuous measurement of environmental parameters
and technological processes at controlled facilities, registers events, warns about unacceptable deviations
of parameters, signals about emergency situations, provides data collection and archiving, and generates
reports. Typical technological scheme is represented in Figure 2.
It’s important to note that, monitoring of technological parameters does not allow to determine the defect
or failure of the equipment, or allows indirectly. To assess the integrity, it is required to make calculations
based on deviations from the norm or to make a direct visual inspection of underwater equipment.

2
COTech & OGTech 2021 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1201 (2021) 012055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1201/1/012055

Figure 2. Technological scheme of SPS.

2.2. Surveillance and inspection of SPS using robotic systems

Divers and robotic systems such as remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) and, autonomous underwater
vehicles (AUVs) have been utilized for subsea integrity management including inspection, maintenance,
and repair (IMR) for over decades. The use of divers in the Arctic is limited, so it will not be considered
further.
Depending on the purpose, robotic systems can be general characterized as inspection vehicles and
intervention vehicles.
Inspection vehicles are utilized to conduct:
1. Survey and inspection;
2. Equipment and process surveillance;
3. Environmental monitoring actives.
For its part, intervention vehicles are used for:
1. Operational activities (e.g. Valve Actuation);
2. Inspection, Maintenance and Repair (IMR).
The above-described classification is general, at the moment modern underwater vehicles allow to
combine several functions. A more detailed classification will be given below.

2.2.1 ROVs. Conventional remotely operated vehicles are tethered with umbilical cable and are distantly
controlled by a vehicle operator. It can carry out a variety of tasks including survey, inspection, valve and
torque tool operations, manipulator-related activities, and underwater inspection. ROVs are capable of
operating in deep water depths, carrying out heavy-duty intervention tasks via hydraulic actuation, and
providing real-time situational awareness via high-quality videos. Control and data transmission are
carried out through an umbilical cable leading to the supporting vessel. The conventional ROV
classification by NORSOK is represented below in Table 1 [3].

3
COTech & OGTech 2021 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1201 (2021) 012055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1201/1/012055

Table 1. ROVs classification.

Class General Definition Detailed definitions

I Pure observation Pure observation vehicles are physically limited to video
observation. Generally, they are small vehicles fitted with video
camera, lights and thrusters. They cannot undertake any other task
without considerable modification.
II Observation with Vehicles capable of carrying additional sensors such as still colour
payload option cameras, cathodic protection measurement systems, additional
video cameras and sonar systems. Class II vehicles should be
capable of operating without loss of original function while
carrying at least two additional sensors.
III Workclass vehicles Vehicles large enough to carry additional sensors and/or
manipulators. Class III vehicles commonly have a multiplexing
capability that allows additional sensors and tools to operate
without being “hardwired” through the umbilical system. These
vehicles are larger and more powerful than Classes I and II.
Class III A – Workclass vehicles < 100 Hp
Class III B – Workclass vehicles 100 Hp to 150 Hp
Class III C – Workclass vehicles >150 Hp
IV Seabed-working Seabed-working vehicles manoeuvre on the seabed by a wheel or
vehicles belt traction system, by thruster propellers or water jet power, or by
combinations of any of these propulsion methods.
Class IV vehicles are typically much larger and heavier than Class
III work class vehicles and are configured for special purpose
tasks. Such tasks typically include cable and pipeline trenching,
excavation, dredging and other remotely operated seabed
construction work.
V Prototype or Vehicles in this class include those being developed and those
development regarded as prototypes. Special-purpose vehicles that do not fit
vehicles into one of the other classes are also assigned to Class V.

The use of ROV in the Arctic region is complicated by the presence of ice. This problem has several
roots:
• The need to use vessels that have an Arctic category that allows them to operate in ice conditions;
• high risk of breaking the ROV cable when working in ice, due to the low reliability of existing
methods of holding the vessel at the point when exposed to drifting ice fields;
• the remoteness of existing bases for the placement of repair equipment and ship bases.
To solve the above challenges, it needs to use vehicles that work autonomously or placed residential at
the bottom of sea.

2.2.2 AUVs. Autonomous underwater vehicles are vehicles that perform underwater tasks without a physical
connection to their operator. Rather, AUV’s are programmed or controlled by the operator via “acoustic
tether”. AUVs are used for observation, surveillance, persistent monitoring, ocean observation, and
inspections of subsea infrastructure. These vehicles can also be equipped with ocean sensors to provide
ocean observations and measurements [4].
Autonomous underwater vehicles are able to operate depth rating up to 6,000m, unlike ROVs, the use
of which is limited for deep waters. AUVs are mainly used for exploring the seabed or for inspecting
pipelines, since their speed is several times higher compared to ROV.

4
COTech & OGTech 2021 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1201 (2021) 012055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1201/1/012055

Figure 3. Kongsberg HUGIN, Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV).

The ability to perform subsea interventions without a support vessel allows to significantly reduce
OPEX, risks, and carbon footprint, however. Removing the support vessel, and the tether system, creates
two main challenges:
• power the vehicle
• communication
Currently, AUVs are limited in their range and duration by their capacities, after the battery is spent, the
system must be recovered by recharging. Most AUVs use onboard stored electric energy for propulsion,
powering sensors, and acquiring data [4].
The use of docking stations can extend the duration of missions for underwater vehicles by recharging
their batteries at sea. Additionally, docking stations may provide a getaway for communication and updates,
as well as storing and transmitting data. Furthermore, a tooling suite can be stored changed out subsea via
the docking station, which will allow increase operational flexibility even more [5]. However, the stations
are not yet commercially available, their application requires changes in the SPS architecture.

Figure 4. Concepts of docking stations a) Oceaneering, Docking Station, 2018 [5] b) Model of
the docking station (Dhanak and Xiros 2016) [6].

2.2.3 Utilization of robotic systems. As described above, the range of tasks performed by traditional
underwater vehicles is very similar and is limited by the lack of commercially available solutions. The
intervention of robotic systems, in general, allows you to perform the entire range of underwater operations,
including:

5
COTech & OGTech 2021 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1201 (2021) 012055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1201/1/012055

• Inspection tasks
 General visual inspection, including cathodic measurements and marine growth
measurements;
 Close visual inspection additionally requiring physical cleaning for close visual inspection,
CP measurements, and crack detection utilizing nondestructive testing (NDT);
 Detailed inspection including close visual inspection, crack detection, wall thickness
measurements, and flooded member detection;
 Routine pipeline inspection including tracking and measurement of the depth of cover for
buried pipelines,
• Maintenance tasks
 Module replacement
 Torque and valve operations
 Chemical injection
 Removal of foreign objects
• Repair tasks
Capabilities of current subsea robotic systems and technology availability are presented in Figure 5
shown below [1].

Figure 5. Capabilities of current subsea robotic systems and technology availability [1].
3. Conclusion
Taking into account the specifics of the Arctic region and the Far Eastern shelf of Russia, the main technical
difficulties in performing IMR in ice conditions can be attributed to:
• the duration of the ice period is from 5 to 9 months
• the need to use vessels that have an Arctic category that allows them to operate in ice conditions
• high risk of breaking the ROV cable when working in ice, due to the low reliability of existing
methods of holding the vessel at the point when exposed to drifting ice fields;
• the remoteness of existing bases for the placement of repair equipment and ship bases.
• the use of divers is limited
Considering all the factors, it can be concluded that the use of AUV with a docking station or next-
generation resident vehicles is the most promising and suitable method that can be applied in the Arctic
region and at SPS. The resident device will reduce the response time and eliminate the time for the
mobilization of ships, additionally, undeniably reduce operating costs and risks. Updating the design of
underwater equipment and its architecture with the inclusion of a docking station will improve the
reliability, availability, and maintainability of a subsea production system. However, the problem remains
that at the current state of art there are no commercially available solutions of vehicles and underwater
docking stations. One of the examples of vehicles that combines the possibilities of working both in tethered
and free-swimming modes is a family of devices named Freedom developed by Oceaneering. It is expected
that these devices will be used in operation jointly with an underwater docking station by 2022[5].

6
COTech & OGTech 2021 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1201 (2021) 012055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1201/1/012055

References
[1] Jabari R, and Cheng T 2020 Autonomous evolution robotic systems for underwater surveillance and
inspection. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA. doi:10.4043/30759-ms.
[2] Arcangeletti G, Mattioli M, Ausborn M, Matskevitch D and Marcotulli A 2021 Autonomous subsea
field development - Value proposition, technology needs and gaps for future advancement,
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA.
[3] NORSOK STANDARD 2003 U-102 Remotely operated vehicle (ROV).
[4] LiVecchi A, Copping A, Jenne D, Gorton A, Preus R, Gill G, Robichaud R, Green R, Geerlofs S,
Gore S, Hume D, McShane W, Schmaus C and Spence H 2019 Powering the Blue Economy.
Washington, D.C.
[5] Newell T and Gayathry H 2020 An autonomous underwater vehicle with remote piloting using 4G
technology. Offshore Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia.
[6] Dhanak R M and Xiros I O. 2016 Springer Handbook of Ocean Engineering. (Springer Publishing).