Steel integrity in the heat of the moment

In the oil and gas industry, critical steel structures and equipment requires both protection from hydrocarbon fire, as well as steel-loss due to corrosion to be able to maintain its designed structural integrity. Fire related incidents points to corrosion as a significant contributor to an incidents’ root cause. It could be corrosion of equipment, valves or piping that leads to a hydrocarbon release which subsequently ignites.

"The cost of operational downtime, combined with financial and environmental consequences related to fire incidents at oil and gas facilities is serious, but when you consider the risks these incidents represent in terms of human life and damage to assets, this is where we really see the importance of investing in prevention and protection," says Ekaterina Mezhentseva, Global Solutions Manager at Jotun.

A new report facilitated by Jotun, titled ‘Maintenance and Corrosion Management in the Global Oil and Gas Industry,’ investigates several factors related to safety critical issues within the oil and gas industry. The Jotun report findings are based on the views of over 1000 senior professionals in the industry.

• 76% say reducing risks of fire-related incidents is an important driver behind companies' maintenance strategies.
• 74% say protective coatings or paints play an important role in reducing these risks.
• 56% of respondents consider corrosion to represents a high risk as a fire hazard.

“This suggests that some operators may be overlooking the potential increased risks associated with corrosion and the potential for hydrocarbon release leading to a fire related catastrophic incident. In my opinion this is a knowledge gap we need to limit, especially considering that data from The European Commission shows that around 20% of major refinery accidents since 1984 have been linked to corrosion,” says Mezhentseva.

PFP

“On the one hand you can work to limit fires, for instance by making sure the integrity of the asset is intact, limiting the possibilities of corrosion and hydrocarbon release. On the other hand, you still need correctly specified structural fire protection protecting the steel assets, to then limit the damage and structural failure if a fire were to develop. Prevent and protect,” says Andy Czainski, Global Category Manager for Fire Protection Coatings, Jotun.

“There are many elements that must come together when designing a robust and appropriate fire protection system for any facility or asset. A risk-based hazard analysis will often identify a combination of active fire protection systems alongside passive systems to protect the steel structure from premature and catastrophic collapse. This provides a crucial time window where personnel can be evacuated and fires extinguished prior to structural collapse, or further incident escalation.”

The industry has many options to consider when it comes to choosing a suitable passive fire protection (PFP) material to protect critical structures and equipment. These include spray or trowel applied lightweight cementitious materials (LWC), concrete applied to steel, fire boarding systems or removable insulative jacket type systems amongst others.

"There are many factors that should be considered when specifying a suitable PFP material, including climatic conditions, corrosive environment, operating temperatures, risk of mechanical damage and performance characteristics of the proposed material. Where these are not considered there is a risk of premature failure of the PFP and reduced or absence of any protection in the event of fire,” says Andy Czainski, who further explains:

“As an example, light weight cementitious materials are commonly used in onshore facilities. It is an economical solution and will provide the required fire protection after installation if correctly specified and installed. However, without regular maintenance of the topcoat sealer and joints, the material can rapidly become denatured and eventually water ingress can lead to corrosion of the underlying steel substrate. Cracking, delamination and eventual detachment of the system can then compromise the ability of the system to provide the required steel protection in the event of hydrocarbon fire, with potentially catastrophic consequences. Should this failure occur on a pipe rack or pressurised process vessel, there could then be an increased risk of incident escalation, or domino effect in the event of a fire event.”

Making maintenance a priority

High performance epoxy intumescent coatings are often chosen by global offshore operators, due to their ability to provide the required fire protection performance, whilst simultaneously providing long term corrosion protection for the life of the asset. These fire protection coatings can be applied to steel structures during the original construction phase of an asset, or as a solution to the repair of aged or deteriorating previously installed fire protection systems, as replacing entire systems can be costly and complex.

Investing in the maintenance of installed passive fire protection systems represents a modest cost compared to the potential catastrophic consequences of system failure.

“Facilities that neglect to survey the condition of previously installed PFP materials and omit repairs of aged or damaged systems, risk financial loss, reputational damage and the safety of their personnel. It all starts with making maintenance a priority – which in turn contributes to maintain steel integrity,” Ekaterina Mezhentseva concludes.

If you are interested to learn more, please visit Jotun.com.

Read the article online at: https://www.tanksterminals.com/terminals/12032025/steel-integrity-in-the-heat-of-the-moment/