4.2 - Ali - Moosavi

7th PIM forum, Berlin, February, 2014
Integrity Assurance of Unpiggable Pipelines

Dr Ali N Moosavi
Corrosion is the Biggest Integrity Threat to Pipelines
Corrosion Protection Options for Pipelines

INTERNAL
Chemical Inhibition
Internal Coating
Dewatering Pigging
Liners (HDPE)
Cladding
EXTERNAL
Coating
Cathodic Protection
Raising the Pipelines
EXTERNAL & INTERNAL

GRE/RTP/HDPE Lines
CRA
6
Inspection / Monitoring Options for Pipelines
Intelligent Pigging Surveys

UT
Visual Inspection
CIPS / DCVG
Tomography
Corrosion Monitoring
Protection at Road Crossings

Track Crossing
Monitoring Test
Post
Surface Laid
Flow line
25 m
Gatch Track
25 m
Coated Flowline Section
Anode
SOLAR POWERED/MOBILE CHEMICAL INJECTION SKID & STACKABLE/MOBILE

CHEMICAL STORAGE TANKS
Liquid level in
the base tank
to be remotely
monitored
Skid mounted system with flow meter.

Intrinsically safe or Safe Area Rated.
Option to rent or own
REMOTE TANK LEVEL
MONITOR
Enables remote monitoring of liquid

level in storage tank.
Enables timely ordering of chemical.
Enables uninterrupted injection of
corrosion inhibitor.
Life Cycle Costing for Options

Option
Cost ($ )
Comments
1 Surface laid flowline
770,000
replace entire flow

line once
2 Pad concept
neutral
3 Surface laid + Chemical Injection
840,000
4 Buried+ external coating + CP +

Chemical injection
1,140,000
5 Incoloy 825 cladding+ buried + external

coating + CP
2,140,000
hydro forming
process
Life cycle costs between the technically feasible options

25 years design life
A typical flow line was used as the basis for the analysis:
4 Km, Carbon Steel API 5L Grade B, 4 inch, wall thickness 8.5 mm
10
The Pad Concept

design press = WHCIP
RDS
CDS
Manifold
Flowline
SSV
Well Site
Transfer Line
SDV
(HIPPs)
design press = WHCIP

Manifold
SSV
Transfer Line
SDV
(HIPPs)
11
Pad Concept
The most effective way to mitigate a risk is to eliminate the

hazard
In a pad or clusters; essentially there are no flow lines
ADCO adopted this concept successfully in the recent projects.
New developments are based on the Pad concept
Work is underway in developing the pad concept in other fields
12
Risk Ranking of Oil Flowlines
Risk Ranking (PoF x CoF)

ADCO (Bab, Bu Hasa & SE)
Oil Flow Lines Nov-12
High,
160 nos,
16%
Low,
599 nos,
62%
Medium,
214 nos,
22%
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
Age
Leaks / Km (within last 5 years).
Production rate
Water Cut
Corrosive gases (CO2, H2S)
Pipe Size
Soil Resistively
Repair History (within last 5
years).
Pipeline Nominal Size
Line Protection (Coating, Overground).
Production interruption without
Mothballing.
13
In Line Inspection
Companies specializing in inline inspection of pipelines
not fitted with pigging
facilities have been used to
assess the integrity status of
high risk flowlines
External Metal Loss Located Downstream of

Girth Weld #3500 with a Depth of 13.8% of
Nominal Wall Thickness
2D and 3D Views of External Metal Loss Downstream of

Girth Weld #3500
14
Intelligent Pigs for Unpiggable Pipelines
Image of a Pig within a

Pipeline Section
Image of a Pig Within a

Bend Section
15
Pipeline Inspection Layout
The pipeline numbering system progresses in a positive direction, beginning at

the Well Head location and ending at the RMS location. In the report each
feature is referenced to a relative position to the Upstream Girth Weld along
with the absolute position from the initial Girth Weld
16
17
18
Depth Based Internal Defects
19
ERF Based Internal Defects
20
Summary Table
Pipeline
Segment
% of Sensor
Data
Captured
% of Valid
Data (Inner
Profile)
% of Valid
Data
(Thickness)
Min. Meas.
Wall Thickness
{mm}
RSF
[min]
Min.
MAOPr
[psig]
MAOP
[psig]
8 Gas
Flow Line
100%
100%
99.3%
4.70
0.486
2,928
1,540
One (1) external metal loss anomaly was identified in the inspection data. The min measured
thickness due to external metal loss was 10.95mm. Based on a nominal wall thickness of
12.70mm, this metal loss corresponds to a 13.8% wall loss.
78 internal metal loss anomalies were individually identified in the inspection data. The min
calculated thickness due to internal metal loss was 4.70mm. Based on a nominal wall thickness
of 12.70mm, this metal loss corresponds to a 63.0% wall loss.
4 dents in excess of 0.5% of the nominal OD were identified in the inspection data. The max
dent size was 0.7% of nominal OD and is located at 5906.41m. The min Safe Operating Pressure
calculated according to ASME B31G-1991 is 2,208 psig.
Based on this inspection data, the pipeline satisfies API 579 Part 5 Level 2 Fitness-For-Service
criteria for any maximum operating pressures equal to or below the listed MAOP of 1,540 psig.
No metal loss anomalies with a depth greater than 80% of the nominal wall thickness were
identified in the inspection data, therefore the pipeline satisfies the ASME B31G depth criteria.
Note: that assessment calculations were performed without any future corrosion allowance 21
Summary
An ultrasonic inline inspection, API 579-1 / ASME FFS-1 2007 Fitness-ForService assessment, and ASME B31G assessment were performed on an
8-inch gas pipeline.
The pipeline inspection data was analyzed for wall thinning and
anomalies such as corrosion, denting, and ovality. The qualified data
from the analysis were assessed using specialized Pipeline software to
determine the Remaining Strength Factor (RSF) and Reduced Maximum
Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOPr) for the pipeline.
This assessment was based on the longitudinal extent of thinning found
in the pipeline and in accordance with a Level 2 Assessment described in
Part 5 of the API 579 standard.
The data was also assessed in accordance with ASME B31G to determine
the failure pressure &the Estimated Repair Factor (ERF) of individual wall
loss anomalies identified in the inspection data.
22
23

4.2 - Ali - Moosavi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4.2 - Ali - Moosavi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4.2 - Ali - Moosavi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7th PIM forum, Berlin, February, 2014

Integrity Assurance of Unpiggable Pipelines

Corrosion is the Biggest Integrity Threat to Pipelines

Corrosion Protection Options for Pipelines

EXTERNAL & INTERNAL

Inspection / Monitoring Options for Pipelines

Intelligent Pigging Surveys

Protection at Road Crossings

Coated Flowline Section

SOLAR POWERED/MOBILE CHEMICAL INJECTION SKID & STACKABLE/MOBILE

Skid mounted system with flow meter.

Enables remote monitoring of liquid

Life Cycle Costing for Options

1 Surface laid flowline

replace entire flow

3 Surface laid + Chemical Injection

4 Buried+ external coating + CP +

5 Incoloy 825 cladding+ buried + external

Life cycle costs between the technically feasible options

The Pad Concept

design press = WHCIP

The most effective way to mitigate a risk is to eliminate the

Risk Ranking of Oil Flowlines

Risk Ranking (PoF x CoF)

External Metal Loss Located Downstream of

2D and 3D Views of External Metal Loss Downstream of

Intelligent Pigs for Unpiggable Pipelines

Image of a Pig within a

Image of a Pig Within a

Pipeline Inspection Layout

The pipeline numbering system progresses in a positive direction, beginning at

Depth Based Internal Defects

ERF Based Internal Defects

You might also like