Field monitoring equipment in North America is continuously aging with some portion of equipment nearing the end of product life. When deciding what to do with end-of-life equipment, producers will find it helpful to consider several factors that determine the overall value of various options: 1) operational profitability, 2) performance degradation, 3) risk of terminal failure, 4) financial implications, 5) regulatory requirements, 6) technological compatibility, and 7) the replacement process. This article will look at the case of gas electronic flow measurement (EFM) devices with integrated 3G modems currently used in Canada. These devices are approaching end-of-life—due to both age and technology changes—providing a real-life example that demonstrates how critical factors can affect decision-making.
Background on End-of-Life EFM Devices with Integrated Modems
Approximately 12,000 EFM devices with integrated modems were produced between 2000 and 2010. They became commonly used for gas EFM throughout the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. If you consider that the typical life span of industrial IoT (internet of things) products is 15 to 20 years, these discontinued EFM devices are reaching the end of their product life at 15 to 25 years.
Furthermore, these devices have 3G modems and, in their current state, will no longer be able to transmit gas flow measurement data once Canadian 3G networks shut down. In response, some companies are offering modem replacements for these older EFM devices. Faced with EFM equipment that will soon become non-functional if no action is taken, producers have a few options to consider for each monitoring location:
- Stop: cease operations and any associated monitoring,
- Quick Fix: replace a component (the modem) on an end-of-life EFM device, or
- Buy New: replace the entire end-of-life EFM device.
Operational Profitability
Assessing operational profitability at each location will help producers determine where continued monitoring is needed. If no longer sufficiently profitable for continued operations, then it would be reasonable to cease operations and monitoring at that site or look for ways to consolidate monitoring with other wells. Where monitoring is still needed, considering the following critical factors will help in making a cost-effective decision.
Performance Degradation
Older equipment, such as these older EFM devices, are more likely to show signs of performance degradation. Performance degradation can occur due to material fatigue, resulting from mechanical stress and environmental factors (Table 1). In the case of these older EFM devices in Canada, performance degradation would be largely due to repeated cycles of mechanical stress (pressure cycles and vibration) on the sensor diaphragm over 15 to 25 years of operation. Environmental factors would be a smaller contributor to performance degradation since these devices are typically installed in heated shacks in Canada.
Table 1. Sources of material fatigue leading to performance degradation
Indeed, it was observed in a side-by-side comparison that older EFM devices can be less responsive to rapid fluctuations in pressure compared to one brand of new EFM devices, likely due to material fatigue of the sensor diaphragm. The observed loss of accuracy is particularly impactful for wells that have low or intermittent flow and can be a subtle effect that grows over time. As such, it is important to watch for performance degradation in end-of-life equipment and identify cases where such degradation exceeds tolerances. In the case of EFM, it is good to keep in mind that calibration verifications typically do not assess responsiveness to rapid pressure changes where degradation was noted in older devices. Any performance degradation will persist until the component causing degradation, or the entire unit, is replaced.
Risk of Terminal Failure
Also, for end-of-life equipment, there will always be a high degree of uncertainty about how much longer the life of these devices can actually be extended. Like any end-of-life equipment, these older EFM devices will have increasing failure rates due to wear out failures after 15 to 25 years in operation (Graph 1).
Graph 1. Failure rate graph from the field of reliability engineering and deterioration modelling
Bathtub_curve.jpg: Wyatts derivative work: McSush, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons (derivative).
As such, producers could replace a modem in a device that will soon fail due to the breakdown of another component or sub-system, such as circuit boards or connectors (Table 2). Further component failures would then require the additional cost of either: a) parts (if available) and labour (if offered) or b) replacement of the entire monitoring device. Producers need to be aware that a quick fix on end-of-life equipment may be quickly followed by terminal failure of that equipment, and they should be cautious about committing to long-term software service contracts dependent on the performance of such devices.
Table 2. Common wear-out failures in electronic monitoring devices
Financial Implications
The risk of terminal failure also has financial implications. In the case of EFM, a modem replacement may cost about a third of the price of a new IoT EFM device (Graph 2). However, if the old EFM device gets a new modem but only lasts a year before terminally failing for other reasons, this would be a steep investment for only one additional year of service—plus now a replacement EFM device is required (Graph 2, light green bar on top of red bar). With many of these old EFM devices being between 15 and 25 years old, it may be quite a gamble to assume they will last several more years to make a modem replacement worthwhile.
Graph 2. Cost of options to continue EFM
Regulatory Requirements
Certification for operation in a hazardous zone is another consideration if replacing a component on older field monitoring equipment. For end-of-life EFM equipment, modem replacements may vary in design and comprehensiveness of certification. For instance, a company could provide a modem that is CSA-certified, but this modem may not be CSA-certified to work together as a system with the older EFM device in a hazardous zone (Image 1). While replacement EFM devices readily provide confidence they are fully CSA-certified, producers considering a modem replacement will want to ask detailed questions of vendors to understand the following:
- Does the modem replacement adequately meet regulatory requirements for the entire EFM system to operate in a hazardous zone?
- Is a certificate of compliance available for the whole system?
- If the modem replacement does not meet these requirements, who carries the liability if something goes wrong?
Any addition or modification to any type of monitoring equipment has the potential to violate its hazardous zone certification, so due care must be taken to understand these risks.
Image 1. Example of certification issues that could affect operation in a hazardous zone
Technological Compatibility
There comes a point when, from a technology standpoint, it is more advantageous to upgrade a device or system in its entirety rather than trying to upgrade single components in a piecemeal manner. Even with a new modem, these older technology EFM devices cannot take advantage of other newer technology and designs available to EFM devices currently sold in the market. For example:
- Some newer designs make it more cost-effective to keep up with technology changes. For instance, the modular design of the TOKU QuickSense EFM consists of two interlocking pieces of hardware (an industrial-grade edge device and a multivariable transmitter), making it simple for any field staff to easily upgrade either component (i.e. no E&I services required).
- Older EFM devices cannot have their firmware updated remotely, which in practical terms meant its firmware was rarely updated because this required a site visit. However, newer integrated EFM devices can easily have their firmware updated remotely.
- Older integrated EFM devices were designed to work with a single data system whereas newer integrated EFM devices allow producers a broader choice of EFM software (SaaS or their own SCADA HMI) that can lead to savings in operational costs.
As this case demonstrates, it is worth considering that newer technology in new equipment could bring significant benefits, including potential cost-savings, over a quick fix on end-of-life equipment.
Replacement Process
There is also the consideration that attempting to replace an integrated component—in heavily-aged equipment and in the field—could lead to irreparable damage to the device. For instance:
- Replacing an integrated modem in a 15 to 25-year-old device could lead to accidental breakage of components that need to be handled during the process, such as ribbon cables that have become more brittle and fragile with age.
- Replacing an integrated component in an uncontrolled environment (i.e. the field instead of a manufacturing facility) could render electronics non-functional through accidental electrostatic discharge.
Producers considering a modem replacement will want to ask vendors what steps they will take to minimize risk of damage (e.g. specialized training and equipment for installers) as well as what contingency plans or compensation are in place if devices are irreparably damaged in the replacement process.
There may also be limitations with replacing a component in end-of-life field equipment. In the case of these discontinued EFM devices, producers will want to understand the following:
- Is the producer’s entire fleet of older EFM devices eligible for modem replacements, including the oldest models in the fleet?
- What modem technology will be used in the replacement, and will it provide coverage in all field locations required?
Likewise, it is important to understand the replacement process and costs of new devices or systems. For instance, SCADA EFM replacements would require more involved—and costly—installations. However, newer integrated EFM devices can be installed in a similar manner to the older integrated EFM devices, which would mean easier—and less costly—installations.
A final consideration is whether there is a finite endpoint to the product life that could affect the supply of components or new devices as well as installation services. In the case of older EFM devices, the finite endpoint looks to be early 2027 in most cases (a target date for 3G sunset in Canada). With a little over a year before these devices stop working on the 3G network, it would be prudent for companies to make plans now to upgrade their equipment to avoid being part of a fall 2026 rush on supply of EFM devices or modems as well as installation services.
Overall Value of Investment
Producers will want to weigh both the value and risks of replacing a component on equipment that is end-of-life versus replacing the entire unit. Table 3 summarizes the critical factors for decisions around end-of-life EFM equipment and can be used to evaluate the options.
Table 3. Summary of critical factors for decision-making around end-of-life EFM equipment
Summary
At first glance, replacing a component on end-of-life monitoring equipment may seem like an easy, lower-cost fix in the near-term, particularly for gas producers in the current economic climate. However, producers will want to weigh all the benefits and risks to determine if replacing end-of-life devices is a better investment than trying to keep end-of-life devices running with a quick fix. As shown in this article, a practical approach for cost-effective decision-making around end-of-life equipment would be to:
- Ensure continuous monitoring where operational profitability is confirmed;
- Be aware of performance degradation in end-of-life equipment;
- Recognize the growing risk of terminal failure in end-of-life equipment;
- Analyze the financial implications of investing in antiquated equipment versus new equipment;
- Examine the regulatory requirements around component replacements versus new equipment;
- Consider the advantages of newer technology over end-of-life equipment; and
- Understand the process to replace a component or the entire device and any associated risks.