Fehlentscheidungen bei Lebensdauerverlängerung und Investitionen durch unzureichende Korrosionsdaten

Definition

The Australasian Corrosion Association notes that owners of high‑value infrastructure such as pipelines must understand the cost implications of ignoring corrosion and that planning corrosion control and mitigation extends asset life and reduces maintenance time and costs, with design lives now expected to be significantly longer.[3] Specialist CP and corrosion firms model cathodic protection for aging assets to manage end‑of‑life and optimise life extension project costs, accurately predicting when and where protection levels will drop so that retrofits and investments are timed appropriately.[5] Where corrosion and CP monitoring is sparse, operators may opt for conservative large‑scale renewals or blanket CP retrofits earlier than necessary, driving unnecessary CAPEX, or delay needed work and face higher later costs and risk. Logic-based estimation: for a major offshore or onshore transmission pipeline, a CP retrofit or partial replacement project commonly runs into the low to mid‑single‑digit millions AUD; uncertainty can easily add 20–40 % to scope and contingency. Thus, an otherwise AUD 5–10m project may carry AUD 1–4m avoidable CAPEX due to poor decision data.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Pipelinebetreiber in Australien 🇦🇺 binden schätzungsweise zusätzliche AUD 1–4 Mio. CAPEX pro größerer Lebensdauerverlängerung, weil Korrosions- und CP-Daten unsicher sind. Automation of structured corrosion and CP monitoring supports data‑driven integrity decisions and optimises CAPEX/OPEX trade‑offs.

Affected Stakeholders

Asset Owner / Board, CFO / Finance Director, Asset Integrity Manager, Capital Projects Manager, Pipeline Integrity Engineer

Related Business Risks