You are on page 1of 23

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