Petroleum Development Oman L.L.C.

UNRESTRICTED Document ID : GU-450

Filing key : UER

GU-450
Guidelines for Inspection and Integrity
Assessment of Carbon Steel Non-Piggable
Pipelines
 Guidelines for Inspection and Integrity Assessment of CS Non-Piggable Pipelines Version 1

Authorised For Issue

Signed :............................................................
(CFDH – Pipelines)

The following table lists the four most recent revisions to this document. Details of all revisions prior to
these are held on file by the issuing department.

Version No. Date Author Scope / Remarks

1 1/11/03 Sultan Al-Aowisi TTP55 Re-Issued for Comments
0 1/4/03 Sultan Al-Aowisi TTO14F Issued for Comments

Keywords:

This document
External MFL, Non
is thePiggable
propertyPipelines,
of Petroleum
Technical
Development
Integrity,
Oman,
Corrosion
LLC. Neither the whole nor any part
of this document may be disclosed to others or reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form by any means (electronic, mechanical, reprographic recording or otherwise) without prior
written consent of the owner.

Page i
Guidelines for Inspection and Integrity Assessment of CS Non-Piggable Pipelines Version 1

Contents

Authorised For Issue....................................................................................................................i

Contents.......................................................................................................................................ii

1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose..............................................................................................................................1
1.2 Scope..................................................................................................................................1
1.3 Target audience..................................................................................................................1
1.4 Structure of This Document..............................................................................................1

2 Background............................................................................................................................2

3 Inspection strategy................................................................................................................3
3.1 Priority Setting for Baseline Inspection............................................................................3
3.2 Calculation of Minimum Acceptable Thickness...............................................................3
3.3 Above Ground pipelines....................................................................................................4
3.4 Class 1 and 2 Non Piggable Buried Pipelines..................................................................4
3.5 Selection of Inspection Areas:...........................................................................................6

4 Related Documents................................................................................................................7
4.1 Business Control Documents............................................................................................7
4.2 Review and Improvement..................................................................................................7
4.3 Step-out and Approval.......................................................................................................7

5 Appendix A - Glossary of Terms, Definitions & Abbreviations........................................8

6 Appendix B – Non Piggable Pipelines Classifications and Distributions........................9

November 2003 Page ii GU-

450
Guidelines for Inspection and Integrity Assessment of CS Non-Piggable Pipelines Version 1

1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this document is to provide guidance on the integrity assessment of non-
piggable pipelines. Guidance is given to define the inspection scope and the analysis of the
inspection results. This should enable the assurance of technical integrity and/or definition of
rehabilitation scope for pipelines of which at present the condition is unknown. The aim of
this procedure is to set out the basic steps that should be followed in order to accurately
determine the internal and external condition of non-piggable pipelines.

1.2 Scope

The scope of this guideline covers non-piggable pipelines all classes buried and above ground,
which total 153 at present (2003). Flowlines, are excluded from the scope of this document.

1.3 Target audience

This document is to be used by the TTO/1 Integrity Engineers and Corrosion Engineers and
by the Asset Team Integrity Focal points. It is also to be used by external MFL contractors in
optimising locations for inspection.

1.4 Structure of This Document

The core requirement of this document is contained in sections 2 describing Non Piggable
Pipelines Inspection Guidelines. Note that there is a separate guideline being drafted for
flowline integrity management.

November 2003 Page 1 GU-450

Guidelines for Inspection and Integrity Assessment of CS Non Piggable Pipelines Version 1

2 Background
Pipeline design guidelines are specified in SP1211 1. Within PDO, pipelines are categorised into
one of three “Pipeline Criticality Classes”; hereafter referred to as “Class 1”, “Class 2” and
“Class 3” respectively. Class 1 is further subdivided in Class 1a and Class 1b.

According to SP1211, All Class 1 pipelines shall be suitable to pass pigs, even if pig traps are
not permanently installed, but this is not always practicable for lines constructed in the past and
in particular short pipelines (e.g. less than 2 km) and headers are often not piggable. PDO now
operates about 83 non-piggable class-1 pipelines and about 84 non-piggable for class 2 & 3
pipelines, as listed in Table 1 below. Details are in Appendix B.

Above Buried Buried

Above Ground
Area Ground Class Class Class 2 Total
(Class 2 & 3)
1a/b 1a/b &3
North 15 17 27 19 78
South 15 41 4 7 67
Infrastructure 0 0 8 0 8

GGO 0 0 14 0 14
Total 30 58 53 26 167

Table 1: Overview of non-piggable pipelines in PDO as per 2003 survey

Many of these non-piggable pipelines do not have a corrosion control strategy and the technical
integrity of most is unknown. This has been identified as providing a high integrity risk to PDO
with respect to loss of production, high cost of failure/degradation and high failure safety risk.
As part of the technical integrity drive and risk management strategy, a need was identified to
develop the strategy to assure the integrity of non-piggable pipelines as outlined in this
guideline.

As part of the non-piggable pipelines procedure a new assessment of the ACR of a pipeline shall
be carried out, and shall be approved by the Corrosion Engineer with the appropriate Technical
Authority (TA-2), Integrity Engineer and pipeline owner. The approval form shall be part of the
procedure and shall be signed off by all concerned parties before the ACR can be used in RBA.
The approval form will be referred to as the ACR report for non-piggable pipelines.

1
SP1211: “DEP 31.40.00.10-PDO Pipeline Engineering”

November 2003 Page 2 GU-450

Guidelines for Inspection and Integrity Assessment of CS Non-Piggable Pipelines Version 1

3 Inspection strategy
3.1 Priority Setting for Baseline Inspection

Class-1 pipelines shall have priority over class-2 pipelines. Class-1a pipelines shall have
priority over class-1b pipelines. Class 3 pipelines do not need to be inspected for internal
corrosion.

Within class 1 pipelines, high pressure wet gas pipelines should have the highest priority. In
addition, the inspection program is to be also based on future requirements of pipelines.

Also during the prioritisation program, the following should be considered:

A- Production rate (Oil deferment consequences):- Pipelines transporting a net oil of more
than 1500 cu.m/day (hypothetical value representing about 1% of PDO production.

B- Maximum allowable operating pressure (Safety Consequences):- Pipelines operating

with high pressure as these will have a great impact on defects failure and consequences.

C- Presence of corrosive elements (Probability of Failure):- Pipelines which are transporting

high percentage of corrosive elements such as CO2, H2S, and O2. In those cases, the ACR
will cover this part.

3.2 Calculation of Minimum Acceptable Thickness

Prior to inspection, the potential corrosion type shall be assessed making use of Table 2 and the
resulting Minimum Allowable Thickness (MAT) shall be calculated as depicted in Figure 1 and
described in Appendix 3. The threshold T = (t – MAT) shall be calculated. A spread sheet for
this calculation is readily available with TTO/13.

Defect length
General corrosion Defect
depth
Defect length
L/t=80 Groovingcorrosion

L/t=20 Pittingcorrosion

Defect depth
80%

General corrosion
Groovingcorrosion
Pittingcorrosion
Corrosion MAT
Tolerance

Figure 1: Calculation of Minimum Allowable Thickness using the Shell92 defect

assessment curve and the defect geometry factor (L=defect length in mm, t = nominal
wall thickness in mm)

November 2003 Page 3 GU-450

Guidelines for Inspection and Integrity Assessment of CS Non Piggable Pipelines Version 1

Type of service Expected type of corrosion Defect geometry

factor L/t
Multiphase gas/condensate Grooving corrosion 80
Multiphase oil Pitting corrosion 20
Wet separated gas Grooving corrosion 80
Dry gas Pitting corrosion 20
Wet separated condensate Pitting corrosion 20
Wet separated crude oil Pitting corrosion 20
Gas injection (wet) Grooving corrosion 80
Water disposal Grooving corrosion 80
Water injection Grooving corrosion 80
Table 2: Expected corrosion type in relation to the pipeline service

3.3 Above Ground pipelines

All above ground Class 1 and 2 non-piggable pipelines should be inspected using external MFL
or similar type scanning inspections tools. For oil service, it is acceptable to inspect the bottom
half of the pipeline where water is expected to settle and corrosion to occur. For gas or water
service, the full circumference should be inspected. In addition road crossings should be
inspected making use of Long Range Ultrasonic Testing or full excavation. Further guidance on
selection of inspection location are provided in section 3.5

The inspection scope depends on the pipeline length. In the case of less than 100% inspection, a
number of sections (at least 4) should be selected along the pipeline where corrosion is most
susceptible.

For class-1 non piggable pipelines the following guidance applies:

 For pipelines less than 10 km, half of the pipeline length should be inspected with a
minimum of 2km. If there are no defects with a depth in excess of the set threshold T,
then the inspection can be considered to be representative for the whole pipeline.
Otherwise, the remainder of the pipeline should be inspected except in those cases
where the requirement for line abandonment is already obvious.

 A minimum of 5 km should be inspected for pipelines in excess of 10 km length. If

there are no defects with a depth in excess of the set threshold T, then the inspection
can be considered to be representative for the whole pipeline. Otherwise, part of the
remainder of the pipeline should be inspected with a minimum of an additional 5
km. The total length should be based on the possibility to assess the integrity and the
remaining life of the pipeline and establish a repair scope if required.

For class-2 non piggable pipelines, the following guidance applies:

 A minimum of 20% of the total length should be inspected with a minimum of 500
m. If there are no defects with a depth in excess of the set threshold T, then the
inspection can be considered to be representative for the whole pipeline. Otherwise,
another 20% of the pipeline should be inspected except in those cases where the
requirement for line abandonment is already obvious.

Authority to deviate from the above requirements shall be through UOM/3.

3.4 Class 1 and 2 Non Piggable Buried Pipelines

There are approximately 55 class 1 (1a & 1b) pipelines distributed throughout PDO areas. 27 of
these in the North, mainly in Lekhwair and Yibal, 4 in the South mainly in Marmul and 24 lines
for the Infrastructure team. These pipelines range in diameter from 4-inch up to 36-inch and in
length from 0.41 km up to 31 km. There are approximately 26 Class-2 pipelines distributed
throughout PDO areas. 19 of these in the North and 7 in the South. These pipelines range in
diameter from 2-inch up to 16-inch and in length from 0.1 km up to 11.5 km.

November 2003 Page 4 GU-450

Guidelines for Inspection and Integrity Assessment of CS Non-Piggable Pipelines Version 1

The following activities to be carried out in order to reach a decision on the integrity and fitness
for purpose:-

1- Carry out CIPS / DCVG Survey, as deemed necessary.

2- Carry out External MFL inspection at above ground sections of the pipeline. This
is applicable for lines with diameters between 4”-12” as these are the current MFL
tool inspection ranges.

3- Check integrity status of upstream/downstream piping / flowlines.

4- Excavate a number of locations as given in Table 3 and inspect a full joint using
manual UT or external MFL and if corrosion is found that requires monitoring then
AutoUT maybe used for those locations. It is also recommended that these excavated
locations to be inspected via LRUT for +/- 10m in both directions from the end of
the excavation.

If serious corrosion is found in excess of the set threshold T, than additional

inspection shall be conducted by doubling the number of inspection locations.

Pipelines Total No of Minimum number Minimum number

Length Buried Lines of Locations to be of Locations to be
(All classes) In Inspected for Class- Inspected for Class-
PDO 1 2

≤ 1 km 22 First 1000m, 1 per 500m First 2000m, 1 per 1000m

Next 4000m, 1 per Next 8000m, 1 per
1000m 2000m
> 1 km, 44 Next 6000m, 1 per Next 12,000m, 1 per
2000m 4000m
≤ 5 km Next 12,000m, 1 per Hereafter, none
4000m
> 5 km 10 Hereafter, 1 per 8,000m

Table 3: Recommended number of inspection locations as function of pipeline length

A Pipe-RBA assessment shall be made on basis of the inspection results, taking into
consideration that the pipeline has only been inspected over a small percentage.

If the inspection shows severe corrosion and the asset team are still keen in using the pipeline
for a limited period of time (up to 3 years) in order to allow time for replacement, then the
pipeline shall be hydrotested to 1.25XMAOP. It is crucial to state that hydrotesting the pipeline
will not guarantee occurrence of future leaks but will rule out burst type of failure.

3.5 Selection of Inspection Areas:

The figure below gives guidance on the areas to be inspected during locations selection
exercise.

November 2003 Page 5 GU-450

Guidelines for Inspection and Integrity Assessment of CS Non Piggable Pipelines Version 1

Inspection Location
Selection

Beginnin Low Non Repair/replace- End of the

g of the Points, e.g. Turbulent ment Locations pipeline
pipeline Wadi and flow areas, where leaks have
road e.g. occurred
crossings, straight previously
bottom of section.
hill

Figure 2: Recommended corrosion susceptible locations for inspection targeting

November 2003 Page 6 GU-450

Guidelines for Inspection and Integrity Assessment of CS Non-Piggable Pipelines Version 1

4 Related Documents
4.1 Business Control Documents

Reference is made in this Guideline to the following PDO Business Control Documents, the
latest issue of which shall be used.

Specifications
Pipeline Operations and Maintenance SP1210
Pipeline Engineering SP1211

4.2 Review and Improvement

This Guideline will be reviewed and updated once approved. The review authority will be
(UEL, CFDH Pipelines).

4.3 Step-out and Approval

Step out for 2 years is allowed but on every occasion of step out should be advised to UEL giving
the reason for the step out.

November 2003 Page 7 GU-450

Guidelines for Inspection and Integrity Assessment of CS Non Piggable Pipelines Version 1

5 Appendix A - Glossary of Terms, Definitions & Abbreviations

General definitions

Contractor The party, which carries out all or part of the design, engineering,
procurement, construction, commissioning or management of a
project, or operation or maintenance of a facility. The Company
may undertake all or part of the duties of the Contractor.

Company Petroleum Development Oman LLC

User The Company, Consultant or Contractor designate who uses this
document.

Company Contract Holder The person assigned by the Company and named in the Contract
Document having single point responsibility for the activity
management of the contract.
Corporate Functional The person responsible for the discipline to which the standard
Discipline Head belongs.

Shall Indicates a requirement

Should Indicates a recommendation
May Indicates a possible course of action

Abbreviations

MFL Magnetic Flux Leakage

CFDH Corporate Functional Discipline Head
MAOP Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure
LRUT Long Range UT
UT Ultrasonic Testing
ACR Assessed Corrosion Rate
Pipe-RBA Pipeline Risk Based Assessment

November 2003 Page 8 GU-450

Guidelines for Inspection and Integrity Assessment of CS Non-Piggable Pipelines Version 1

6 Appendix B – Non Piggable Pipelines Classifications and

Distributions

Non Piggable Lines – North Oman

November 2003 Page 9 GU-450

Guidelines for Inspection and Integrity Assessment of CS Non Piggable Pipelines Version 1

Non Piggable Lines – South Oman

November 2003 Page 10 GU-450

Guidelines for Inspection and Integrity Assessment of CS Non-Piggable Pipelines Version 1

Non Piggable Lines – Government Gas Operations (GGO)

Non Piggable Lines – Infrastructure

November 2003 Page 11 GU-450