This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Integrity Analysis of the Camisea Transportation System, Peru, S.A., June 2007
Integrity Analysis of the Camisea Transportation System, Peru, S.A., June 2007
Prepared for Inter-American Development Bank 1300 New York Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20577
Prepared by Exponent 320 Goddard, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618
June 8, 2007
Doc. No. SF36292.003 A0F0 0607 0806
June 8, 2007
Page List of Figures List of Tables Acronyms and Abbreviations Limitations Executive Summary Background and Scope of Work Spill Incidents Risk Identification Risk Evaluation Design-Related Risks Construction-Related Risks Geotechnical and Geology-Related Risks Pipe Integrity–Related Risks Seismic-Related Risks Scour-Related Risks Future Activities 1 Introduction 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 Description of the System Operational History Report Organization vi ix x xi xii xii xv xvi xvii xvii xviii xx xxiii xxv xxvi xxvi 1 1 3 3 5 5 5 6 8 8 ii
Exponent’s Investigation 2.1 2.2 2.3 Objective Phases of Work Scope
Review of NGL Pipeline Incidents 3.1 Background
SF36292.003 A0F0 0607 0806
6 5.2 Hydrostatic Testing Results for the Camisea System 5.7 Pipeline Construction Characteristics Geotechnical Construction Characteristics Clearing Related Risks Trenching-Related Risks Pipe Material–Related Risks Pipeline Field Welding–Related Risks Pipeline X-ray–Related Risks 188.8.131.52 Hydraulic Design of NGL Pipeline 4.3 4.4 5.1 General Review 4.3 3.4 3.3 5.1 Background 5.8 Hydrostatic Testing–Related Risks 5.June 8.3 Hydraulic Design of NG Pipeline 4. 2007 3.003 A0F0 0607 0806 .8.2 3.5 3.3 Hydrogen-Induced Crack–Related Risks 5.2 Hydraulic Design Risks 184.108.40.206 5.1 Geotechnical and Geologic Conditions iii SF36292.7 3.5 5.4 5 Geotechnical Design Risks Conclusions Construction-Related Risks 5.8.9 6 Conclusions Geotechnical and Geology-Related Risks 6.1 5.8 4 First Incident Second Incident Third Incident Fourth Incident Fifth Incident Sixth Incident Summary and Conclusions 8 13 17 21 25 29 30 32 32 33 33 34 35 37 38 40 40 45 46 47 48 50 51 51 51 52 53 54 56 56 Design-Related Risks 4.1 Design Background 4.6 3.
2007 6.4 9 Conclusions Scour-Related Risks 9.3 Wave Propagation Hazards 8.1 9.3.2 10.2 Application of the Risk Assessment Method 6.1 Risk Assessment Methodology 6.1 Background 7.3.3 Circumferential Crack Detection 7.4 8 Conclusions Seismic-Related Risks 220.127.116.11 10.3.3.3.4 6.3 River Crossings and Scour Risks at Buried River Crossings Conclusions 10 Summary and Conclusions 10.5 7 Ongoing Geotechnical Risk Mitigation Conclusions Pipeline Integrity–Related Risks 7.1 Characterization of Seismic Demand 8.1 8.June 8.3 Seismic Risk Evaluation 8.2 Inline Pipe Inspection Results 7.3.2 9.2 Permanent Ground Deformation (PGD) Hazards 8.1 7.2 Description of Potential Risks and Controls Pipe Material and Damage Tolerance–Related Risks 7.2 General Findings 57 60 60 62 69 70 73 73 74 75 75 76 77 78 80 80 82 84 84 85 86 87 88 88 89 93 94 94 94 95 6.3 Inline Pipe Inspection 7.003 A0F0 0607 0806 iv .3 Pipeline Design–Related Risks Pipeline Construction–Related Risks Geotechnical and Geology-Related Risks SF36292.3 Geotechnical Risk Assessment 6.2 Tectonic Overview Seismic Hazards to Buried Pipelines 8.
7 11 Pipeline Integrity–Related Risks Seismic-Related Risks Scour-Related Risks Summary 96 96 97 97 98 98 101 101 101 Recommendations 11.4 10.2 11.6 10. 2007 10.5 10.1 11.3 11.003 A0F0 0607 0806 v .4 Geotechnical and Geologic Seismic Scour Pipe SF36292.June 8.
General area of the third spill incident. Bottom: View downstream along ROW showing alignment of temporary bypass pipeline (beneath stacked sacks) and new retaining wall at base of cut slope. 2007 List of Figures Page Figure 1. at KP 200+700. during permanent pipeline repair work. at KP 222+500. General area of site of first spill incident. Bottom: View upstream (looking upslope). during stabilization work. at KP 8+850. 23 SF36292. Top: View upstream showing large landslide above and below ROW. MCI photograph showing frontal view of fracture surface of the first rupture at KP 8+850. 2006. White arrows indicate the weld’s root pass in the background to the fracture surface. 12 13 Figure 4. MCI photograph showing frontal view of fracture surface of the pipe from the second spill incident of the NGL pipeline at KP 222+500. Bottom: View looking upstream. at KP 200+700. after stabilization work conducted in 2006. MCI photograph of pipe from the third spill incident. red arrows indicate the inner surface of the pipe where the hydrogen-induced crack began. Photographs taken on June 14. Top: View looking downstream (uphill). 2006. 2006. 2 Figure 2. Bottom: View downstream (upslope) across trenches opened for repairs. 16 Figure 7. a NGL fractionation plant in Pisco. 2006. and a NG distribution point in Lurin. Site of fourth spill incident. at KP 50+900 showing river crossing and new steel truss bridge carrying the NGL bypass pipeline. Photographs taken on June 14. Top: View upstream (downslope) along excavated trench along NGL pipeline. 2006. 19 20 Figure 8. at KP 8+850. Photographs taken on June 13. during ROW stabilization work. Location of second spill incident. Photograph taken on September 11.003 A0F0 0607 0806 vi . and September 19. with the extraction and production (E&P) centered in Malvinas. 11 Figure 3. looking downstream. Top: View downstream (looking downslope). Photographs taken on June 12. 15 Figure 6. and yellow arrows indicate the narrow remaining ligament at the outer surface of the pipe. General area of first spill incident. Right-of-way of the Camisea Transportation System in Peru. Figure 5. Plastic sheeting covers 14-inch NGL pipeline. 2006.June 8. Figure 9.
with the outer surface of the pipe being the top portion of the photograph. Standard installation of NGL pipeline at KP 107. which includes the monitoring program for the September 2006 results.003 A0F0 0607 0806 vii . Figure 24. Figure 21. Figure 11. Risk assessment results for September 2006. Risk assessment results for May 2006. Each zone is numbered. Black material is the damaged protective polyethylene cover. Figure 15. at an amplification of 14×. Risk by sectors for October 2006. Ratio of the maximum operating pressure divided by the design pressure along the ROW of the NG pipeline. Bottom: View downstream (upslope) across excavation made to remove unstable soil. Risk by sectors for May 2006. Figure 12. Blue arrows demarcate three distinct fracture zones. Ratio of the maximum operating pressure to the MAOP along the ROW of the NGL pipeline. Figure 18. Trenching and stockpiling of cuttings at KP 391. Risk assessment results for October 2006. at KP 125+950. with the pipe being horizontally aligned and NGL product flow being from the right to the left. White arrows identify the narrow. 2007 Figure 10. Figure 27. Excavated NGL pipe section from the sixth spill incident. Photographs taken on June 13. Change in risk from May to October 2006. during stabilization work. Figure 23. Observed groove (white arrows) and rupture (red arrows) on the outer surface of the pipe. General area of the fifth spill incident. Cross-sectional view of the Peru-Chile Trench (after Worthey. with protected wrinkle from which NGL was reported to have been leaking. Figure 13. MCI photograph showing fracture surface of NGL pipeline at the fifth spill incident. 2006. Figure 25.June 8. Laying of pipe over the Manugali River at KP 92. Figure 17. Top: View upstream (downslope) along the ROW. Figure 16. slanted fracture associated with crack nucleation. Figure 22. Placement of selected fill as bedding at KP 358 using a machine that separates larger stones from the remaining fill. Washington State University website). Figure 19. Figure 14. with the graph origin being in Malvinas. Comparison of the pipeline elevation profile along the ROW. Figure 20. Figure 26. 24 26 28 29 33 34 36 42 42 43 44 64 65 66 67 68 69 81 SF36292.
Figure 29. 2007 Figure 28. and Tavera 2003). Methodology utilized by Golder Associates for the scour analysis of the Camisea Pipeline (taken from “EVALUACIÓN DE CRUCES Y QUEBRADAS PROYECTO CAMISEA ‘RIVER CROSSING’” – presentation by Golder Associates January 24 and 25. Peru. Lima. Figure 30. Flow chart for conducting scour analysis (from FHWA HEC-18).June 8. West coast of Peru showing source regions of great events of 1868 and 1877 and epicenters of notable 20th century earthquakes (after Dewey. 82 90 92 SF36292.003 A0F0 0607 0806 viii . 2007. Silva.
2007 List of Tables Page Table 1.June 8. Table 2.003 A0F0 0607 0806 ix . Leaks identified during hydrostatic testing of the pipeline Risk category assessment chart 49 62 SF36292.
Camisea Transportation System Tuboscope Pipeline Services Vector Peru S.A. SF36292.June 8.S. 18 Golder Associates heat-affected zone high-density polyethylene hydrogen-induced cracking Inter-American Development Bank Ingenieria y Geotecnia LTDA Likelihood Levels maximum allowable operating pressure Metallurgical Consultants Inc.C. Magnetic Flux Leakage million standard cubic feet per day maximum operating pressure MR Associates natural gas natural gas liquid pressure control station permanent ground deformation pressure reduction station pump station Qualified Welding Procedures Risk Management Plan right-of-way supervisory control and data acquisition scanning electron microscopy Severity Levels Shielded Metal Arc Welding Safety Ratio Transportadora de Gas del Peru S. Department of Transportation extraction and production Exponent® Failure Analysis Associates Flux Arc Welding Federal Highway Administration Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 2007 Acronyms and Abbreviations ABSC API ASME BPD CFR COGA DOT E&P Exponent FCAW FHWA HEC-18 Golder HAZ HDPE HIC IDB IGL LL MAOP MCI MFL MMSCFD MOP MRA NG NGL PCS PGD PRS PS QWP RMP ROW SCADA SEM SL SMAW SR TgP the system TPS Vector ABS Consulting American Petroleum Institute American Society of Mechanical Engineers barrels per day Code of Federal Regulations Compania Operadora de Gas del Amazonas U.003 A0F0 0607 0806 x .A.
based on engineering and geological experience and judgment. or the condition of concealed construction. Accordingly. Accordingly. Exponent has no direct knowledge of. and are derived in accordance with current standards of professional practice. SF36292. Comments regarding concealed construction or subsurface conditions are our professional opinion. which experienced five spill incidents between December 2004 and March of 2006. In addition. ground stability. wholly or in part. interviews of key personnel involved in the design and construction. Our investigation included visual inspection of the pipeline right-of-way and adjacent areas. and any reuse of this report or the findings or conclusions presented herein is at the sole risk of the user. by changes that are beyond our control. document review. such as rains and landslides or human activities. This report also provides a site-specific technical evaluation of the geotechnical and mechanical aspects of each incident. the findings of this report may be invalidated. beyond what was specifically revealed during the site visits and our document review.June 8. and offers no warranty regarding subsurface conditions. 2007 Limitations At the request of the Inter-American Development Bank. Exponent has used and relied upon certain information provided by sources that it believes to be reliable for the purpose of this report. Exponent prepared this report to summarize our evaluation of the integrity of the pipeline components in the Camisea Transportation System. and engineering analysis. limited visual inspection of some failed pipe sections. and a sixth spill incident in April 2007. Changes in the conditions of the right-of-way may occur with time due to natural processes or events.003 A0F0 0607 0806 xi . The scope of services performed during this investigation may not adequately address the needs of other interested parties. using the currently available information to identify the most probable contributing factors.
800 m. on the coast of Peru south of Lima. During our investigation of causal factors in the five incidents and assessment of pipeline integrity. TgP contracted with Compania Operadora de Gas del Amazonas (COGA) for the operation and maintenance of the pipeline. SF36292. which transports the liquid condensates from Malvinas to a fractionation plant near Pisco. The alignment of the ROW is shown on Figure 1. and descends steeply toward the coast along the Pacific Ocean. Exponent’s retention followed the occurrence of five spill incidents.003 A0F0 0607 0806 xii . Exponent made recommendations to Transportadora de Gas del Peru S. The system consists of two buried pipelines: 1) a natural gas (NG) pipeline. (TgP) in order to improve future pipeline integrity by mitigating and controlling identified risks to the system. This report summarizes these efforts and provides a risk-based evaluation of the system that incorporates extensive sources of information and field investigations by Exponent.1 Along this route. The intent of our investigation was to develop a risk profile for the two component pipelines and identify the factors that contributed to the incidents. The two pipelines share a common right-of-way (ROW) that traverses the Peruvian jungle. which runs from the upstream facilities at Malvinas to a terminal station at Lurin. The Camisea Transportation System is owned and operated by TgP. and the NG pipeline is approximately 734 km long. commencing in April 2006. climbs over the Andes Mountains at an elevation of approximately 4. during the first 19 months of operation. the NGL pipeline telescopes from a nominal pipe diameter of 14 to 10¾ inches.June 8. TgP has implemented many of these interim recommendations and has undertaken other additional activities based on its experience and knowledge.A. The NGL pipeline is approximately 561 km long. 2007 Executive Summary Background and Scope of Work Exponent® Failure Analysis Associates (Exponent) was retained by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) to perform a pipeline integrity analysis of the Camisea Transportation System (the system). 1 True length of pipeline. at the southern edge of Lima. and 2) a natural gas liquid (NGL) pipeline. each of which resulted in the release of hydrocarbons.
The risk was evaluated following the implementation of various mitigation measures constructed in 2006. and ongoing operation. The location of this spill incident is also shown on Figure 1. overall assessment of the integrity of the pipelines. Specifically. 2007 and the larger NG pipeline telescopes from a nominal pipe diameter of 32 to 24 to 18 inches. Recently. and commercial operation began in August 2004. The locations and dates of the first five spill incidents are shown on Figure 1. All of the spill incidents occurred in the first 222 km of the NGL pipeline—four of the spills occurred in the selva sector. which was compared to the baseline risk established during the first phase of our investigation. pipeline maintenance. geologic and geotechnical hazard mitigation. and the design of river crossings (scour analysis). The first phase included an evaluation of the suitability of the seismic design.003 A0F0 0607 0806 xiii . 2007. Exponent’s pipeline integrity analysis was conducted in two integrated phases. where a small amount of NGL was reported to have been released. In contrast. the second phase included: 1) developing and assisting in the implementation of a hybrid risk-based system to evaluate potential geotechnical and geologic hazards to the pipeline system. TgP subsequently repaired the NGL pipeline and is currently investigating the root cause of this incident. we established a baseline risk level for the system and performed a technical review of the five spill incidents that occurred in the system between December 2004 and March 2006. TgP identified2 a sixth incident on April 2. 2) evaluating the SF36292. pipeline construction.June 8. Specifics of the first five individual spill incidents are presented later in this summary. the mechanical design. primarily the NGL. Construction of the pipelines started in 2002. and one in the sierra sector. no leaks have occurred on the larger diameter NG pipeline or on either pipeline in the costa sector. Exponent prioritized the identified hazards and evaluated the efficacy of currently used mitigation and control measures. The objective of the first phase was to provide a forward-looking. one in the transition zone between the selva and the sierra sectors. The objectives of the second phase were to further evaluate key risks and to evaluate the progress made by TgP and COGA in reducing risks to the pipeline. As part of that study. pipeline design. The following components were included in our evaluation of risk in the first phase: pipe material.
Exponent personnel also interviewed key personnel involved with design. 2 Exponent was informed that TgP detected this minor leak during planned activities of its pipeline integrity program. seismic studies. operation. and 3) evaluating the efficacy of the current pipe integrity program. In some cases. In order to accomplish the pipeline integrity analysis. Exponent performed its own engineering analysis to quantify certain risks to the integrity of the pipeline. river-crossing studies. Finally. or had been completed. 2007 effectiveness of the geotechnical stabilization measures constructed in 2006 to mitigate external soil pressures acting on the pipelines. under construction. pipe material data. pipeline design drawings and calculations. and maintenance of the system. and maintenance of the Camisea Transportation System. a multi-disciplinary team of Exponent engineers and scientists performed inspections along the pipeline ROW in June and September 2006. In addition to the document review and engineering analysis activities. These inspections occurred at more than 50 sites along the ROW where geotechnical stabilization measures were proposed. These documents included engineering specifications.003 A0F0 0607 0806 xiv . These interviews were supplemented with numerous teleconference calls that included the designers. operations. geotechnical and geological studies. construction progress surveys. Exponent participated in the metallurgical investigation of samples of pipe that were involved in two of the incidents. construction.June 8. construction specifications. operators. and independent consultants hired during the construction and maintenance of the pipeline by TgP. Exponent reviewed more than 400 sets of documents related to the design. and operational data. various internal and external pipeline inspection reports. service providers. hydrological studies. construction. and reviewed the metallurgical examination reports and evidence from the five spill incidents that we investigated. SF36292.
Exponent was not retained to perform a root-cause analysis of any of the spill incidents. progressive soil loading likely propagated an initial crack and induced the rupture of the NGL pipeline. At both of these locations. ultimately rupturing the pipe and releasing the NGL at a very slow rate. The third incident occurred in an area that was well studied from a geologic perspective and was known to be an area of very high risk of ground failure. The hydrogen crack escaped detection by the post-welding radiography because of the inherent incubation time associated with hydrogeninduced crack initiation. located at KP 222+500. SF36292. respectively. hydrogen-induced crack in the weld. Our current understanding is that the combination of hydrostatic load cycles and subsequent operational pressure fluctuations caused the hydrogen crack to be further destabilized.003 A0F0 0607 0806 xv .June 8. even though the crack had extended to approximately 90% of the wall thickness4 by the time the hydrostatic test was performed. In the incident at KP 8+850. In the incident at KP 125+950. to uniquely identify the cause or causes of failure. the crack resulted in complete severance of the NGL pipe. Exponent identified unstable geotechnical conditions as a significant contributor to the rupture of the pipe. This is a rather deep crack. which occurred at KP 8+850 and KP 125+950. It is currently Exponent’s opinion that the high toughness of the pipe material allowed the pipe to pass subsequent hydrostatic testing (performed five months after the welding). both undermining and overtopping the ROW and the road next to the ROW. In both cases. and subsequent crack growth due to normal operational pressure fluctuations need be only minimal to reach a critical crack depth that causes the remaining ligament ahead of the crack to fail. appears to have been primarily the result of a timedelayed. and to consider the potential for systemic problems. The NG pipeline was not damaged at either location.3 Our evaluation identified similarities in fracture surfaces in the NGL pipe from the first and fifth incidents. the crack resulted in a throughwall leak of about 10 inches in extent. Hence. While some measures were taken during construction to mitigate this geologic risk. The second incident. a sizable landslide ultimately overwhelmed these measures. 3 4 A root cause analysis is the integrated evaluation of all facts pertaining to the investigated failure. 2007 Spill Incidents Exponent reviewed information related to the first five NGL pipeline spill incidents as a means of evaluating risk.
current information suggests that the rupture of the NGL pipe was induced by mechanical damage to the exterior concrete coating and a dent in the exterior wall of the NGL pipeline. the NG pipe at this location was not damaged. eliminate if appropriate. during our study.003 A0F0 0607 0806 xvi .June 8. Finally. For the fourth incident. Analysis performed to date indicates that the dent was not made by a boulder washed downstream during the flash flooding that immediately preceded the spill. and/or monitored. the pipe wall at this location was apparently capable of containing the NGL fluid until some unknown external loading event caused the already weakened pipe wall to fail in ductile overload at the damaged area. This triggering loading event could have been associated with riverbed scouring caused by the flash flooding. controlled. it is important to note that the metallurgical testing confirmed that none of the five spill incidents were related to pipe material quality. located at KP 50+900. The objective of risk management as part of a pipeline integrity management program is to identify. risk was ranked to be minimal if the risk is currently not a concern and effectively consistent with other pipelines. The NG pipe at this location was not damaged. Indeed. Again. we identified four SF36292. 2007 the rupture of the NGL pipe at this location is attributed to overload caused by a substantial landslide. we define risk as the likelihood that a given chain of events will occur and result in a consequence that has a defined severity. and then prioritize the remaining sources of risk so they can be mitigated. Risk Identification The pipeline integrity analysis evaluated the risk categories that influence the likelihood and severity of potential pipeline failures. For purposes of this report. In this context. The aggregate of the likelihood of failure and the severity of failure is risk. In this report.
June 8. we found that the risk associated with geotechnical and geological conditions is currently more significant than risks associated with pipe integrity.003 A0F0 0607 0806 xvii . our communication with TgP to date indicates that they are committed to continue identifying and reducing the geotechnical risks to the pipeline.5 mechanical pipe integrity. seismic events. although pipe integrity–related risks typically increase with the age of the pipeline. 5 For the purposes of this report. Risk Evaluation The four primary categories of risk identified above are discussed in more detail in the paragraphs that follow. Exponent’s review determined that TgP implemented various actions in 2006 to substantially reduce the risk of future incidents to the pipeline. Due to their importance. 2007 primary categories of risk affecting the integrity of the pipeline: geotechnical and geological. Foreseeable load conditions apply to internal pressures and to external loads imposed by soil pressures or ground movement. SF36292. Geotechnical hazards are defined as movement in soil. However. to varying degrees. and scour. Design-Related Risks The system was designed to comply with the engineering code requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Each of these areas of integrity risk is discussed separately below. poor foundation (ground) conditions. The higher risk level associated with geotechnical hazards is a direct consequence of the steep topography. seismic events. whereas geological hazards are defined as movement in rock. Furthermore. and river scouring. on decisions made during the design and construction of the pipeline. and abundance of water along the pipeline ROW in the selva sector. geotechnical and geological hazards are defined as external pressures resulting from ground movement.6 Code compliance is established if the designer demonstrates that all specific code requirements and all reasonably foreseeable load conditions are addressed by the design. In summary. typically when saturated. we also recognize that the four risk categories identified above depend. we first provide a brief summary of our investigation into potential systemic risks resulting from the design and construction of the system.
hydraulic risk). The pipe book lists relevant pipe data. This ROW had to be contained in a 3-km-wide. using more than 100. such that steel plates are rolled and longitudinally welded at the mill.e.4 [Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids] is the applicable Code for the NGL pipeline. Our design review revealed that the pipeline designers assumed that external soil loading would be entirely mitigated by geotechnical mitigation measures implemented during construction at sites deemed to pose a geotechnical or geological hazard. Brazil. The pipe manufacturer’s records indicate that these mills are located in Pindamonhangaba. The pipes were transported to the individual construction sites. external loads were an important element for the design and construction of the system. and deviations from this pre-approved corridor had 6 7 ASME B31. government mandated corridor.8 [Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems] is the applicable code for the larger NG pipeline. any risks associated with the internal pressure aspects of the design are minimal and consistent with other pipelines. and ASME B31. all pipes were coated with an outer high-density polyethylene (HDPE) layer to protect them from external corrosion. Subsequently. A review of the pipe book7 and the pipe manufacturing and coating records indicates that the pipe material used was purpose built for the system at two pipe mills during 2002 and 2003. Therefore. SP. Given the demanding route of these pipelines through the jungle and up the mountains. Argentina. SF36292. We have independently verified that the computed design pressures are code compliant and in good agreement with the measured operational pressures along the whole length of both pipelines.June 8. and Buenos Aires. 2007 Our review indicates that the pipe wall thickness is sufficient to contain the internal pressures of the transported hydrocarbon products along the entire length of the pipeline (i.000 individual pipes..003 A0F0 0607 0806 xviii . These electric-resistance-welded tubular pipes are manufactured per the American Petroleum Institute’s API 5L standard. where the ROW itself was commonly the only available route for transportation. Construction-Related Risks The system was constructed simultaneously at several so-called “mini-spreads” along the ROW. each of which is up to 12 meters long.
Within the 3-km-wide corridor. and the work was inspected by outside consultants. the pipe was strung out. and girth welds were used to join individual pipes. 2007 to be granted by the Peruvian government. trench conditions.8 This process was generally effective at minimizing and 8 Exponent’s scope of work did not include reviewing these x-rays. they ultimately became a source of concern related to the potential to exert external soil pressures on the pipes. in that placing the ROW near the base of the mountains. and along rivers and drainages. Overall. Next. The ground conditions encountered during installation of the pipe were reportedly assessed by geotechnical engineers. and at locations where the pipeline was laid along an existing road. the cleared section of the ROW was typically restricted to 25 meters. it is our understanding the government of Peru– commissioned pipeline audit is performing this task. the constructor decided to preferentially build the pipeline along mountain ridges. The ROW was cleared and cut.003 A0F0 0607 0806 xix . and potential damage to the pipe exterior.June 8. would have likely resulted in substantially more construction-related damage to the environment. SF36292. Geotechnical engineers also supervised the geotechnical mitigation measures to control surface water runoff and stabilize the ROW following installation of the pipelines. A completed pipe section that may be several hundred meters long was then lowered into the trench and welded together to form an even longer pipe section. To minimize environmental impact.000 girth welds of both pipelines were to be welded per approved procedures and to be x-rayed 24 hours later. This standard construction methodology was replaced by special construction methods in very steep terrain. where potential risks to pipeline integrity arise primarily from the girth welds. Exponent’s review indicates that this approach was appropriate and preferred. The more then 100. Due to limitations imposed by the narrow lane of clearing. the construction methods are consistent with general pipeline construction practice. grading along the ROW consisted of cutting into the hillside and placing the excavated material as “side-cast” or “spill” fill on the downhill side of the clearing. at river crossings. and some mitigation measures were constructed at that time. Although these side-cast fills were generally placed outside the limits of the pipe trenches.
003 A0F0 0607 0806 xx . the water-tightness of the pipeline was verified by maintaining a constant water pressure for at least 24 hours. in which a hydrogeninduced crack survived the hydrostatic test. eight leaks were identified. of which seven occurred in the NGL pipeline and one in the NG pipeline. long individual sections of the pipeline were hydrostatically tested. In this program. Geotechnical and Geology-Related Risks The spill incidents and observed performance of the system as of early 2006 caused TgP to set into motion an aggressive geotechnical remediation program that began in earnest in April 2006. Despite the above-described actions. To further reduce the likelihood of failure. This incident is currently not considered to be indicative of any systemic problems for the more than 100. and a foreign object being introduced during rolling of the steel plate used to manufacture a pipe in one case. a faulty longitudinal weld in two other cases.000 girth welds.June 8. All these failures were subsequently repaired. more than 100 sites along the ROW were evaluated and mitigated in 2006 by implementing SF36292. During the hydrostatic testing. external damage during construction in two cases. initiating the subsequent spill incident. which may be similar to other pipelines in the world. The causes of the leaks were determined to be a faulty girth weld in three cases. especially considering the challenging terrain. This situation arose with the second spill incident. Overall. This hydrostatic test was performed for both pipelines along the entire length of the system. Geotechnical instability caused or substantially contributed to two of the five spill incidents (#1 and #5). Next. The test results are more an indication of the test’s ability to detect preexisting faults. some minimal risk exists because defects may be aligned or sized such that the hydrostatic test would not rupture the pipe and the defect could go undetected. where weld quality was to be evaluated per the American Petroleum Institute’s API 1104 standard. and geologic instability caused one of the five spill incidents (#3). 2007 detecting weld defects that needed to be repaired. Eight failures in more than 1.250 km of pipeline is a low number. Hydrostatic testing involves filling each pipe section with water and pressurizing the water to a predefined level that exceeds the maximum operating pressure. the radiography of all girth welds and hydrostatic testing of the Camisea Transportation System reduced the level of risk. and the pipeline section was successfully re-tested.
Exponent observed over 50 sites. following extraordinary efforts to stabilize geotechnical and geologic conditions along the ROW. During the second phase of our project. This system was validated using information from our field inspections. Exponent concluded that geotechnical stabilization measures constructed during 2006 are generally reliable and robust. we determined that these measures were being applied in a consistent and effective manner. and controlled in this ongoing process. piezometer. the sites identified are listed in the hybrid risk matrix. reliable repairs. While the route of the system traverses a challenging and dynamic area. As a result of these efforts. As early as April 2006.. TgP believed that geotechnical hazards due to soil movement were more effectively documented. Exponent worked collaboratively with TgP to develop a hybrid risk matrix to adequately assess the likelihood of future failure resulting from geotechnical and geologic conditions. strain gauge. TgP and COGA had also contracted additional external geotechnical and geological specialists to help assess the hazards and evaluate the likelihood of failure. the risk of future failure of the system from external geotechnical forces has been substantially reduced. Construction of geotechnical mitigation measures in 2006 significantly reduced this risk by improving the geotechnical and geological stability at specific sites of greatest hazard. Based on our second round of inspections in September 2006 and subsequent documentation review. and rainfall monitoring) is being used or is recommended to provide additional interpretation and warning of ground instability. representing SF36292. 2007 geotechnical mitigation measures using more robust construction techniques. we concluded that geotechnical and geologic conditions initially posed a substantial risk to the pipeline.003 A0F0 0607 0806 xxi . Further. TgP and COGA had begun to implement a system of identifying those sites with the highest priority for mitigation based on the perceived likelihood of failure and the potential consequence of failure. At the end of 2006. addressed. and data on movement characteristics. observations. to permit more expeditious. during our field inspections in June and September 2006. and engineering experience. Based on our review.June 8. some on both occasions. In more critical areas.g. To date. slope inclinometer. our initial inspection in June 2006 indicated that some of the original stabilization measures implemented during construction were not completely effective. instrumentation (e. survey control.
The results of the geotechnical risk assessment are consistent with our field observations that TgP and COGA have made substantial progress in reducing the overall risk. The core of this program involves regular visual inspections. This program allows for the early detection and correction of potential problem areas. and the vast majority of these stations are located in the selva sector. being now ranked as “very high.” TgP has stated that construction of new geotechnical stabilization measures is ongoing or completed at these sites. It is our understanding that TgP is updating the hybrid risk matrix and is committed to implementing additional geotechnical measures in 2007. reflecting the risk prior to and after construction of the new geotechnical mitigation measures. Exponent also reviewed a monitoring program initiated by TgP and COGA to help reduce the risk of future failure resulting from external geotechnical forces by detecting and quantifying early signs of slope instability. In this regard. Thus.June 8. The multi-disciplinary team of inspectors is trained by COGA’s technical consultants and is intimately familiar with the project and conditions along the alignment. adjacent to the second pump station. The addition of monitoring provided a further reduction to 5 sites having a “high” to “very high” risk. We expect that the continuous. we recommended that TgP adopt a proactive approach of continually assessing geotechnical hazards along the ROW. including during the rainy season. while we initially ranked 45 of 94 sites as having “high” to “very high” risk (along the initial 455 km of the ROW).003 A0F0 0607 0806 xxii . TgP has committed to implementing the recommended Risk Management Plan (RMP) that should govern the use of all risk assessment methods and guide TgP’s actions. SF36292. the construction of the geotechnical mitigation measures in 2006 reduced this number to 12 sites. between KP 0 and KP 220. This program appears to be comprehensive and is integral to reducing the risk of future failure resulting from geotechnical conditions. Therefore. with solely the site at KP 108. Some of these sites may even be ranked with a high to very high risk and will need to be mitigated quickly. ongoing implementation of the risk matrix process will identify additional sites that are not included in the current hybrid risk matrix due to the absence of surface manifestations of ground movement. 2007 locations that have exhibited manifestations of ground instability. and after implementation of the additional monitoring programs discussed below. The risk at each station was then evaluated at three different points in time.
Exponent’s analysis of this loading condition has shown that the as-designed NG pipeline has a significantly larger external load capacity and flaw tolerance than the NGL pipeline. per requirements by API 1160 xxiii SF36292. TgP performed an inline inspection of the NGL pipeline in 2006 using the Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) inspection tool and a geometric inline inspection tool. Exponent believes that a successful implementation of the above. during construction. which can induce axial pipe stresses in addition to those induced by the internal pressure of the transported hydrocarbons. will identify additional sites and reduce the geotechnical-related risks further. Several approaches have been adopted by TgP to reduce this risk. which is consistent with four of the first five spill incidents. Load capacity estimates for the NGL pipeline show that. such that the NG pipeline generally has a low risk of failure from external loads. and TgP’s ongoing and prior geotechnical construction program reduces the likelihood of soil movement. and the construction of additional geotechnical mitigation measures in 2007. 2007 decision process. while sufficient for internal pressures. the most significant risks to the system arise from external loading caused by soil movement. TgP has reported that the inspection of the NGL pipeline identified 30 reportable defects. weld quality. The MFL inspection tool has the capability to detect metal loss and other potential anomalies. As discussed above.June 8. Thus. Second. Soil movement imposes lateral loading upon the pipe. and the geometric tool measures the pipe’s geometry along its length. reducing the potential number of potential weld-related and pipeline material defects. all the welds were x-rayed. and the quality of protection the pipe is afforded against environmental conditions. First. the residual risk is now mostly confined to areas that may become geologically unstable and that may contain potential weld anomalies. it is susceptible to this external failure mode. any growth of such defects that would lead to the rupture of the pipe requires the presence of external loading. Removal of the loading is a good way to further mitigate the risk. At this time. Pipe Integrity–Related Risks Pipe integrity–related hazards are associated with pipe material. These axial stresses are known to affect the girth welds in the pipe.003 A0F0 0607 0806 . To mitigate the residual risk. and the entire pipeline was hydrostatically tested. and manner of execution.
TgP has voluntarily identified additional sites to further quantify the accuracy of the inline inspection tools. Overall in 2006. In addition. if required. no pipeline inspection company is readily able to provide a commercially available inspection tool to detect potential circumferential cracks. Specific resources have been committed in 2007 to further improve TgP’s ability to detect potential circumferential cracks. no severe external or internal corrosion damage exists along the NGL pipeline. and evaluation of metal loss per ASME B31G. TgP significantly reduced pipe integrity–related risks and is currently engaged in additional efforts to reduce the risk profile under technically and logistically difficult conditions. Despite the fact that the use of in-line inspection tools to detect small circumferential cracks is currently not a common practice among pipeline operators due to the 9 Department of Transportation of the United States of America. which will assist in assessing the implications of this concern related to pipeline integrity. TgP is currently excavating these sites to perform a more detailed evaluation and initiate the appropriate repair measures. A root cause analysis of spill incidents 1 and 5 and the origin and nucleation of the potential circumferential cracks will be performed by TgP. At present. In this regard. even though the technology to do so appears to be available. In an effort to quantify the MFL tool’s ability to detect crack-like features. TgP and its contractors conducted a research program to quantify the crack detection limit of the MFL tool. Exponent performed a pipeline integrity study to determine the MFL inspection tool’s utility in detecting circumferential cracks. Results of the MFL inspection tool. However. currently. SF36292. have shown that.June 8. 2007 and DOT9 195.003 A0F0 0607 0806 xxiv . it is Exponent’s opinion that some sections of the NGL pipeline may be subject to a potential longterm risk that will need to be addressed in the long-term planning stages of TgP’s pipeline integrity program.10 Our analysis indicates that a potential circumferential crack would need to be subjected to a significant external load to be detectable with high certainty by the currently employed MFL inspection tool. The MFL inspection tool has proven to be an excellent tool to detect internal and external corrosion damage to the pipe in this project.
Although several seismic hazard studies were performed as part of the design of the system. the probability of detection decreases rapidly.003 A0F0 0607 0806 xxv . sierra. Another investigation identified active fault crossings along the pipeline and evaluated the pipeline’s capacity for predicted fault displacements. 10 The service provider of the currently used MFL inspection tool has determined that only circumferential cracks with a crack mouth opening of more than 0. The first study characterized the regional seismic hazard for each of the three sectors (selva. The earthquake hazard appears to be the greatest in the costa sector and least near the selva sector. Recognizing the potential seismic hazard. and costa) and provided more specific evaluations of ground motions for the pump stations. our review suggests that the potential for permanent ground displacements (e. liquefaction. pressure control stations. the pipeline fabricator commissioned several seismic hazard studies during the design process. TgP will evaluate potential options..June 8. Additional studies consisted of evaluating the potential for wave propagation damage for straight sections of buried pipe and 12 surface facilities. and lateral spread) should be evaluated more comprehensively to reduce uncertainty. SF36292. For cracks with a smaller crack opening. seismic risk management would benefit from an update of the design ground motions with up-to-date scientific information. as part of the pipeline integrity management plan of seismic risks. Seismic-Related Risks The system lies within regions that have the potential for very large and frequent earthquakes. and pressure reducing stations.1 mm can be detected with a probability of better than 90%. landslides. 2007 relatively low risk to pipeline integrity posed by circumferential cracks under normal operating loads. Additionally. Exponent currently understands that TgP is engaged in a review. slope instability. to determine whether these potential seismic risks are acceptable for this system or whether mitigation measures should be considered.g.
pipeline crossings should be designed and constructed to withstand floods of relatively extreme magnitude. additional scour studies and investigation of potential scour mitigation measures are warranted and are currently being evaluated by TgP. However. and river scouring as secondary risks. seismic events. The analysis identified four primary categories of risk to the integrity of the pipeline: geotechnical. In addition to the mentioned studies. Therefore. These design studies included field investigations of stream crossings. Flood-induced scour can occur over short periods of time. However.June 8. 2007 Scour-Related Risks Scour is defined as the erosion of streambed or bank material due to flowing water. TgP has implemented various actions to help reduce these risks. Despite not being required. and mechanical pipe integrity.003 A0F0 0607 0806 xxvi . naturally occurring lateral migration of the mainstream channel within its floodplain may affect the stability of the buried pipeline crossings. the HEC-18 scour design approach was partially utilized. which is considered the industry standard to evaluate stream scour. The higher risk level associated with geotechnical hazards is a direct consequence of the steep topography. as described in the Federal Highway Administration’s Hydraulic Engineering Circular 18 (HEC-18). Exponent recommends evaluation of additional potential scour processes. In addition. Future Activities Exponent performed a pipeline integrity analysis of the pipeline components of the Camisea Transportation System. HEC18 is not a design standard required under Peruvian law. including various interim recommendations made by Exponent during our investigation. and the abundance of water along the pipeline ROW in the selva sector. with little warning and serious consequences. considered to be the most significant. Exponent’s review of the scour analyses performed during the design of the project indicates that some assessments were performed to determine the minimal depth at which to bury the pipeline. Given the potential uncertainty and the objective to minimize this risk. poor foundation (soil) conditions. along with other procedures that were deemed to be appropriate by the designer. in the opinion of SF36292.
2) re-evaluation of potential scour risk at river crossings and. SF36292. implementation of actions to reduce such risks. If and when ongoing pipeline integrity management efforts identify additional issues. 2007 Exponent. 5) spill root cause analysis of spill incidents #1. However. In this context. a technical action plan has been established with TgP and the IDB. #4. in particular wave propagation. and thus.003 A0F0 0607 0806 xxvii . Exponent also notes that pipeline integrity management is a continuous process. which includes review of these actions and additional site visits in 2007. based on the results. future information and risks need to be continually and properly evaluated. resulting from strong ground shaking. This plan includes: 1) implementation of geotechnical mitigation and monitoring actions in 2007. it appears to Exponent at this time that TgP is performing adequate pipeline integrity actions. and #5. 3) reconsideration of seismic risk. Exponent has been retained to provide continued technical assistance to the IDB related to the Camisea Transportation System. risk management actions above and beyond those currently being taken may be required. 4) experimental evaluation of potential circumferential cracks and their impact on pipe integrity. excluding fault rupture. and that these actions have significantly reduced the risk to the system. along with continued geotechnical risk assessment. permanent ground deformations. Based on available information obtained during Exponent’s investigation and the proposed actions. additional actions are still recommended to continue the minimization of any existing pipeline integrity risks.June 8.
SF36292. The alignment of the ROW.406 and 1 inch.A. Deviations from this pre-approved corridor had to be granted by the Peruvian government. and descends steeply toward the Pacific coast.800 m. The two pipelines share a common right-of-way (ROW) that traverses the Peruvian jungle. and the NG pipeline is approximately 734 km long. the cleared section of the ROW was typically restricted to a width of 25 meters. government-mandated corridor.11 Along this route. climbs over the Andes Mountains at a peak elevation of approximately 4. on the coast of Peru south of Lima. the NGL pipeline telescopes from a nominal pipe diameter of 14 to 10¾ inches. 11 True length of pipeline.469 inch.219 and 0. which transports the liquid condensates from Malvinas to a fractionation plant near Pisco. Within this 3-km-wide corridor. with heavier wall thickness typically used for sections with larger diameter. at the southern edge of Lima. Commercial operation of the system began in August 2004. The system consists of two buried pipelines: 1) a natural gas (NG) pipeline. TgP contracted with Compania Operadora de Gas del Amazonas (COGA) for the operation and maintenance of the pipeline. The NGL pipeline is approximately 561 km long. which is shown on Figure 1.1 Description of the System The Camisea Transportation System (the system) is owned by Transportadora de Gas del Peru S. (TgP). traversing the roughly 200-km-long selva sector. and 2) a natural gas liquid (NGL) pipeline. and the wall thickness of the larger NG pipelines ranges between 0. follows a 3-km–wide.. and the 200-km-long costa sector. 2007 1 Introduction 1.003 A0F0 0607 0806 1 . the ~300-km-long sierra sector. Both pipelines are constructed of tubular high-strength steel in conformance with the American Petroleum Institute (API) 5L standard and sleeved in a protective plastic layer.June 8. which runs from the upstream facilities at Malvinas to a terminal station at Lurin. and the larger NG pipeline telescopes from a nominal pipe diameter of 32 to 24 to 18 inches. Construction of the system was performed by Techint beginning in 2002. The wall thickness of the NGL pipeline ranges between 0.
Right-of-way of the Camisea Transportation System in Peru. with the extraction and production (E&P) centered in Malvinas. and the pressure reduction stations reduce the pressure as the liquid hydrocarbons flow downhill to the fractionation plant located along the Peruvian coast. and a NG distribution point in Lurin. a pressure control station (PCS) reduces the pressure of the natural gas. 2007 The NGL pipeline is equipped with four pump stations (PS) on the east side of the Andes Mountains and three pressure reduction stations (PRS) on the west side of the Andes Mountains. All block valves are connected to an automatic leak detection system to quickly shut down the NGL pipeline in case of a pipe rupture. to minimize the amount of potential spillage.June 8. Figure 1. The NG pipeline receives the processed gas products from Pluspetrol’s exploration and processing facility in Malvinas at a sufficiently high pressure such that no further compression is currently required.003 A0F0 0607 0806 2 . mostly at major river crossings. On the west side of the Andes Mountains. SF36292. The pump stations propel the liquid hydrocarbons up the Andes Mountains. The NGL pipeline is also equipped with nineteen block valves and ten check valves. a NGL fractionation plant in Pisco. The PCS is equipped with several redundant safety features and a venting capability to protect the pipeline from over-pressurization events.
3 Report Organization This report is structured in three main parts: 1) the review of the six spill incidents of the NGL pipeline. hydrogen-induced crack in a girth weld.June 8. located at a river crossing at KP 50+900. 2007 The system is centrally operated from Lurin using a state-of-the-art supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system.003 A0F0 0607 0806 3 . appears to have been primarily the result of a time-delayed. The system communicates primarily via its own fiber optic cable that is installed along the pipelines and has two technologically different and independent backup systems: a satellite and a radio frequency–based system. located at KP 222+500. in that external soil loading is currently considered to have been a significant contributor to the subcritical crack growth in the pipe. A more detailed description of each incident is given in Section 3 of this report. and pipe-related risks of this system. The NG pipeline has not experienced a known gas release. In this regard. The third incident occurred in an area that was well studied from a geologic perspective and known to be an area of high risk of landsliding. The second incident. 1. and 3) the identification and evaluation of the geotechnical and geologic risk. The first (KP 8+850) and fifth (KP 125+950) incidents were similar. The fourth incident. our work focused on the NGL pipeline.2 Operational History Since the Camisea Transportation System was placed into service in August 2004. appears to have been induced by mechanical damage to the exterior concrete coating and a dent in the exterior wall of the NGL pipeline and been triggered by riverbed scouring caused by a flash flood. SF36292. 1. the NGL pipeline has experienced six incidents involving a release of NGL (see Figure 1). An explosion occurred as a consequence of the fifth incident. The SCADA system gathers all operational data and allows direct remote control of all components. 2) our review of the design and construction methods and their risk assessment. scour risk. seismic risk. The rupture of the pipe at this location is attributed to overload caused by a landslide. The sixth incident occurred upstream of the fifth incident in April 2007 and is currently under investigation by TgP.
Sections 6 through 9 describe both the hazards and means that were and will be used to mitigate pipelinerelated risks in the following four areas: geotechnical and geological risks. Section 10 presents our overall conclusions and recommendations for future activities. and pipeline fabrication are also discussed in Section 5.003 A0F0 0607 0806 4 . seismic risks. and scour risks at river crossings.June 8. 2007 The spill incidents and their probable cause are reviewed in Section 3. pipe manufacture. Section 5 addresses construction and issues related to the geotechnical mitigation measures that were constructed during this period. SF36292. Issues related to pipe material. pipe integrity risks. Section 4 describes the system’s mechanical and geotechnical design and evaluates whether any systematic risks were introduced during the design process.
geologic and SF36292. 2) investigate the causal factors of the first five spill incidents. 4) develop and assist TgP in implementing a qualitative risk assessment method to evaluate geotechnical and geological hazards.2 Phases of Work Exponent’s pipeline integrity analysis was conducted in two integrated phases. Although TgP had undertaken a substantial program to provide stabilization measures along the ROW beginning in April 2006.003 A0F0 0607 0806 5 . 6) evaluate the pipe inspection program. The following components were included in our evaluation of risk in the first phase: pipe material. commencing in April 2006. 5) evaluate the effectiveness of the geotechnical measures constructed in 2006 to stabilize the ROW. The objective of the first phase was to provide a forward-looking. During this investigation.June 8. 2007 2 Exponent’s Investigation 2. 7) identify and evaluate seismic hazards. The primary objectives of our investigation were to: 1) develop a risk profile for the two component pipelines and identify the factors that contributed to the spill incidents. overall assessment of the integrity of the pipelines. primarily the NGL. pipeline construction. TgP also implemented our interim recommendations. This report also summarizes these efforts and provides a risk-based evaluation of the system that incorporates extensive sources of information and field investigations by Exponent. 2. and 8) explore possible contributions of scour to the risk of future pipeline failure at stream and river crossings. Exponent made recommendations to TgP intended to improve future pipeline integrity by mitigating and controlling identified risks to the system. 3) review key information on the design and construction of the system.1 Objective Exponent® Failure Analysis Associates (Exponent) was retained by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) to perform a pipeline integrity study of the Camisea Transportation System. pipeline design. each of which resulted in the release of hydrocarbons. Exponent’s retention in April 2006 followed the occurrence of five spill incidents during the first 19 months of operation.
and 3) evaluating the efficacy of the current pipe integrity program. pipe material data. construction specifications. operation. Exponent reviewed more than 400 sets of documents related to the design. a multi-disciplinary team of Exponent engineers and scientists performed inspections along the pipeline ROW in June and September 2006. Exponent prioritized the identified hazards and evaluated the efficacy of currently used mitigation and control measures. Exponent performed its own engineering analysis to quantify certain risks to the integrity of the pipeline. the second phase included: 1) developing and assisting in the implementation of a qualitative risk assessment method to evaluate potential geotechnical and geologic hazards to the pipeline system. The objectives of the second phase were to further evaluate key risks and to evaluate the progress made by TgP and COGA in reducing risks to the pipeline.000 girth weld radiographs. The first phase included an evaluation of the suitability of the seismic design.3 Scope In order to accomplish the pipeline integrity analysis.003 A0F0 0607 0806 6 . river-crossing studies. 2007 geotechnical hazard mitigation. geotechnical and geological studies. As part of that study. hydrological studies. which was compared to the baseline risk established during the first phase of our investigation. The risk was evaluated following the implementation of various mitigation measures constructed in 2006. Specifically. construction. 2. Exponent did examine the radiographs of the spill incidents and some additional of the more than 100. and design of river crossings (scour analysis). and ongoing operation. and maintenance of the Camisea Transportation System. These inspections SF36292.June 8. pipeline design drawings and calculations. In addition to these activities. seismic studies. In some cases. mechanical design. we established a baseline risk level for the system and performed a technical review of the five spill incidents that occurred in the system between December 2004 and March 2006. These documents included engineering specifications. pipeline maintenance. 2) evaluating the effectiveness of the geotechnical stabilization measures constructed in 2006 to mitigate external soil pressures acting on the pipelines.. various internal and external pipeline inspection reports. and operational data. construction progress surveys.
2007 occurred at more than 50 sites along the first 450 km of the ROW where geotechnical stabilization measures were proposed. were under construction.June 8. operators. construction. operation. Special attention was given to the first 220 km of the ROW. Exponent participated in the metallurgical investigation of samples of pipe that were involved in two of the incidents. Finally. These interviews were supplemented with numerous teleconference calls that included the designers.003 A0F0 0607 0806 7 . and independent consultants hired during the construction and maintenance of the pipeline by TgP. or had been completed. and maintenance of the system. where all spill incidents have occurred and geotechnical as well as geologic risks are considered to be highest. and reviewed the metallurgical examination reports and evidence from the first five spill incidents. SF36292. Exponent personnel also interviewed key personnel involved with design. service providers.
13 The NGL pipe has a diameter of 14 inches and a nominal wall thickness of 0. and to consider the potential for systemic problems. and 12 13 14 15 Root cause analysis is the integrated evaluation of all facts pertaining to the investigated failure to uniquely identify the cause or causes of failure.12 All of the spill incidents occurred in the first 222 km of the NGL pipeline— four of the spills occurred in the selva sector. The locations and dates of these six spill incidents are shown on Figure 1. Exponent reviewed information related to the first five NGL pipeline spill incidents as a means of evaluating risk. SF36292. and one in the sierra sector.2 First Incident The first incident occurred on December 22. At the point of rupture. This location had been inspected by GEOTEC15 in September 2004. The hills contain gentle to moderately steep slopes bisected by short ravines that rise above the Urubamba River. 3. no leaks have occurred on the larger diameter NG pipeline.003 A0F0 0607 0806 8 . A relatively level strip of land bounded by steeper slopes above and below.25 inch along this section of the system. Distance along the pipeline as measured from Malvinas and marked along the ROW at every kilometer point (KP). 2004. 2007 3 Review of NGL Pipeline Incidents 3. In contrast. a total of six spill incidents have occurred along the NGL pipeline. The topography at this site is characterized by undulating hills at a low elevation (~400 m). with a slope profile of approximately 15%. GEOTEC was the geotechnical engineering firm that supervised the implementation of geotechnical stabilization measures during construction of the pipeline system.June 8. in the jungle sector near KP 8+850. Exponent was not retained to perform a root-cause analysis of any of the spill incidents. In-place geotechnical mitigation measures consisted of surface drainage channels constructed of soil-cement bags.1 Background Since the Camisea Transportation System was placed into commercial service in August 2004. one in the transition zone between the selva and the sierra sectors. the pipe was on an intermediate bench14 and near a small stream.
the 14-inch NGL line was exposed. Stone and Webster Management Consultants (April 2006). At the time of our June 12.17 No fires or explosions occurred as a consequence of the spillage. Both pipelines were originally buried at a depth of up to 7 m. and stabilization measures. Selected photographs of the area from that visit are shown in Figure 2. TgP estimated that 260 m3 of hydrocarbons were released. GEOTEC recognized that the cracks provided a route for rainfall runoff to infiltrate the soil. 2006.June 8. The pipeline rupture was detected in TgP’s control room in Lurin as an anomaly in the pressure characteristics of the pipeline between PS #1 and PS #2. when additional geotechnical stabilization measures were nearly complete. visit.003 A0F0 0607 0806 9 . Remediation and geotechnical stabilization work completed before our visit included repair of the pipeline. TgP discovered that the pipe was circumferentially cracked in the vicinity of a girth weld16 but was not completely severed. 2006. 2006. A substantial amount of overburden soil had been 16 17 Circumferential weld joining two pipe sections. but based on available information. and interviewed TgP personnel who were knowledgeable about the history of construction. the rupture site was isolated between the block valve at the outlet of PS #1 and the block valve on the east bank of the Urubamba River at KP 12. During their site investigation. “Analysis of Incident Report: Camisea Pipeline Project.” SF36292. and additional stabilization measures were being constructed to stabilize a shallow landslide that had occurred in the vicinity of the rupture. TgP stopped pumping hydrocarbons at PS #1. repairs. and construction of retaining walls to mitigate lateral earth movement in the ROW. Seven minutes after noting the anomaly. Exponent visited this site again on September 11. they believed that there was no need for significant remedial geotechnical stabilization work. 2007 revegetation with grass. Exponent inspected this site on June 12. They recommended sealing of cracks and repairing channels and current breakers. The hydrodynamic forces of the escaping NGL had formed a sinkhole above the pipeline. and by the ninth minute. Cracks in the soil and displacement of some of the drainage channels were interpreted as evidence of soil settlement. addition of ditch breakers to control subsurface seepage along the pipeline. cleanup of hydrocarbon-containing soil.
whereas ditchbreakers were constructed to control subsurface water flow along the pipeline. Figure 3 provides an overview of the newly constructed geotechnical stabilization measures at the site on September 11. The extensive monitoring program being implemented for the site consists of strain gauges to detect pipe movement. looking downstream. SF36292. 2006.June 8. and the depth of the NGL pipeline at that time was reported to be about 1. 2007 removed from the ROW to improve the stability of the slope.18 as well as retaining walls and piles to stabilize the slope and prevent lateral earth movement along the ROW. 18 Current breakers and surface channels were installed to control surface runoff. and piezometers to monitor the groundwater level. Stabilization measures included the construction of surface and subsurface drainage features.0 to 1.003 A0F0 0607 0806 10 .5 m. inclinometers to detect soil movement.
Plastic sheeting covers 14-inch NGL pipeline. 2007 Figure 2. during ROW stabilization work. 2006. SF36292. Photographs taken on June 12. Bottom: View upstream (looking upslope). General area of site of first spill incident. Top: View downstream (looking downslope).003 A0F0 0607 0806 11 .June 8. at KP 8+850.
19 (MCI) performed a metallurgical investigation of the ruptured pipe section. Photograph taken on September 11. General area of first spill incident. as shown in Figure 4. 2006. at KP 8+850.June 8. is a Houston-based metallurgical laboratory. MCI concluded that the fracture occurred between the 4 and 7 o’clock positions20 (about 10 inches long). Metallurgical Consultants Inc. looking downstream. and the wall of the pipe was breached (see Figure 4). with the crack beginning at the pipe’s outer surface. after stabilization work conducted in 2006. The circumferential position on a pipe is referenced to a clock. as evidenced by the presence of ratchet marks on the fracture surfaces. Inc. with rapid incremental tearing in a few load steps. At the request of TgP. until the crack became critical. 2007 Figure 3. with the 12 o’clock position being straight up and the viewer looking downstream at the clock. Subsequent loading propagated this crack subcritically. MCI stated that this initial crack formed when offset fatigue cracks coalesced. SF36292.003 A0F0 0607 0806 12 . 19 20 Metallurgical Consultants.
June 8. As shown in Figure 5. 2005. as well as our own investigation. Analyses done by GIE (GIE S. This spill incident occurred at an elevation of approximately 3. Our current understanding is that the circumferential crack grew subcritically as soil loading bent the pipe until it ruptured.950 m on a fairly broad topographic ridge crest at the head of a long valley.A.003 A0F0 0607 0806 13 . IGL (Ingenieria y Geotecnia LTDA). SF36292. identified soil movement and the possible loss of pipe bedding21 due to water infiltration as a significant contributor to the rupture of the NGL pipeline. 2007 Figure 4. occurred in the mountain sector near KP 222+500.). the pipeline ascends an east-facing slope and is approximately 30 m away from the unimproved San 21 Soil placed beneath the pipe in the trench. MCI photograph showing frontal view of fracture surface of the first rupture at KP 8+850. The incident.3 Second Incident The second incident was discovered on August 29. 3. referred to as the Pacobamba failure. MCI’s metallurgical investigation of the failed pipe confirmed that the pipe material and weld were in compliance with applicable codes but minor allowable anomalies per API 1104 were identified. and MCI. approximately nine months after the first incident.
the block valves upstream and downstream were closed to isolate the rupture site. At this location. TgP’s control room received this information at 19:34 hours and commenced a leak investigation of the NGL pipeline.5-inch-long) circumferential crack along a girth weld of the NGL pipeline. MCI analyzed.to 2. On June 14. the removed fractured pipe section. A local resident discovered a small hydrocarbon surface stain caused by a minor leak in the NGL pipeline. with initial participation of Exponent.3 m long that connected two much longer sections of piping. NGL pipeline excavation. Twenty minutes later. 2006. On September 1. at 15:00. just upstream of PS #4.219 inch. and temporary repair of the NGL pipeline using a slip-on sleeve were completed. At the time of our visit. which verified the existence of a small (approximately 2. a slope profile of approximately 15%. Selected photographs of the area from that visit are shown in Figure 5. the field investigation.003 A0F0 0607 0806 14 .June 8. and at 20:04. and a bypass pipe was being installed to enable removal of the fractured pipe section with the slip-on sleeve and installation of a permanent repair. Remediation and stabilization work completed before the inspection included temporary repair of the pipeline and cleanup of hydrocarbon-containing soil and rock. MCI also performed a detailed investigation of the fracture surface of the NGL pipeline. SF36292. MCI identified the leaking weld as being part of a tie-in section approximately 1. the 14-inch NGL pipeline has a nominal wall thickness of 0. the NGL line was exposed in a series of three trenches. 2007 Antonio-Pacobamba Road. It is noteworthy that the normal operating pressure is very low at this elevated location. the pipeline was shut down. Exponent staff inspected this site and interviewed TgP personnel familiar with the rupture. which contributed to the low leakage rate (significantly less than a fraction of 1% of the NGL pipeline’s product flow rate). 2005. and a burial depth of 1 to 1½ m.
Bottom: View downstream (upslope) across trenches opened for repairs. 2006. at KP 222+500. Location of second spill incident. Top: View upstream (downslope) along excavated trench along NGL pipeline. 2007 Road Ridge Figure 5. SF36292.003 A0F0 0607 0806 15 .June 8. Photographs taken on June 14. during permanent pipeline repair work.
June 8, 2007
MCI’s investigation indicates that the leakage began as a time-delayed, hydrogen-induced crack on the inside surface of the pipe and extended radially to a crack depth of more than 90% of the wall thickness (see Figure 6). Mild steels used in pipeline construction are known to be susceptible to hydrogen-induced cracking (HIC). Because hydrogen can be introduced temporarily during welding, welded regions of the pipe are particularly susceptible. Typically, these cracks can take between several hours and several days to develop after welding. While the hydrogen-induced crack was evident in the post-failure radiograph, it was not visible in the post-weld radiograph that was performed according to TgP one day after welding. This 90% deep hydrogen-induced crack, though close to critical, was able to pass the subsequent hydrostatic test, performed approximately 5 months after welding. Pressure cycling during hydrostatic testing and the subsequent pressure fluctuations during operation of the pipeline further destabilized the crack, which ultimately caused—at a much later time during normal operation of the NGL pipeline—the formation of a tight through-wall crack from which the NGL escaped very slowly. Exponent’s current understanding is that the hydrogen-induced crack originated in the weld, and that the low normal operating pressure at this location likely delayed the rupture of the weakened NGL pipeline.
MCI photograph showing frontal view of fracture surface of the pipe from the second spill incident of the NGL pipeline at KP 222+500. White arrows indicate the weld’s root pass in the background to the fracture surface; red arrows indicate the inner surface of the pipe where the hydrogen-induced crack began; and yellow arrows indicate the narrow remaining ligament at the outer surface of the pipe.
SF36292.003 A0F0 0607 0806
June 8, 2007
The third incident, referred to as the Toccate failure, occurred on September 16, 2005. This failure occurred in the upper jungle sector near KP 200+700 on the Pacobamba variant, a portion of the ROW that was rerouted before construction, primarily for environmental reasons. This rupture was caused by a fairly substantial landslide that extended across the ROW and severed a girth weld that joined a bend (wall thickness of 0.344 inch) to a straight pipe (wall thickness of 0.219 inch). This section of the ROW is on a tall, steep, west-facing valley wall and follows a long, unimproved road between San Antonio and Toccate. The third incident occurred approximately 1 km northeast of the town of Toccate at an elevation of approximately 2,350 m. Various studies conducted prior to construction had identified this area as having many unstable geologic zones that would require special engineering and construction methods. The location was described as having a very high physical risk due to the potential for shallow landslides,22 rockslides,23 and debris flows.24 Based on these findings, some geotechnical mitigation measures were installed to stabilize the slope and protect the pipeline. Mitigation measures implemented during construction included the establishment of a narrower ROW to minimize the heights of cut slopes, and carefully controlled blasting to minimize vibrations that could loosen rock masses above and below the roadway. GEOTEC’s October 2004 report, two months after the system was placed into operation, describes the area as the most unstable site that they evaluated along the ROW, and the area of greatest risk for the stability of the pipelines in case of ground movement. Evidence of ground movement in the form of cracks and distorted retaining walls was noted in two zones, one above the pipelines and one below. The upper zone of movement was adjacent to a slope failure that occurred after the installation of the pipelines and forced their relocation. GEOTEC recommended long-term monitoring and geotechnical stabilization measures. Exponent’s site visits along this section of
A mass of soil and/or detached bedrock that slides downslope. The moving mass is generally thinner than about 3 to 6 m. Movement can be slow or rapid – measured in meters per month to meters per second. A mass of detached bedrock that slides downslope. The mass can be less than a meter to many tens of meters thick. Movement is generally rapid – measured in meters per day to meters per second. A mass of mud and rocks that flows downslope, generally during or shortly after heavy rainfall. The mass is usually no more than a few meters thick. Movement is rapid – measured in meters per second.
SF36292.003 A0F0 0607 0806
June 8, 2007
the ROW slopes showed evidence of incoherent, highly fractured rock and locally thick soil along very steep slopes that extend a long distance above and below the road. The rupture was detected in the control room due to a pressure drop at PS #3 on September 16, 2005. At 00:15 hours, the operating system reported normal operating conditions. A drop in pressure and flow rate was registered at 00:16, which automatically activated the upstream and downstream block valves to isolate the rupture site. One minute later, the pipe operator stopped pumping NGL. The total amount of released NGL was estimated to be approximately 1,102 m3, of which approximately 410 m3 remained after evaporation.25 No fires or explosions occurred as a consequence of the rupture. TgP’s technical report on this rupture identifies several measures that were deployed to capture the NGL liquid downslope of the rupture site, as well as along the possible flow path of the Chunchubamba River, a tributary to the larger Apurimac River. Exponent inspected this site on June 14 and September 19, 2006. Selected photographs of the area from the first visit are shown in Figure 7. Remediation and stabilization work completed before our June 2006 visit included construction of a bypass pipeline beneath the roadway, and completion of various interim geotechnical works along approximately 500 m of the ROW. As a result of ongoing stability problems at the site, a bypass tunnel, approximately 730 m long, was under construction from Rio Corimayo northeast of the site to the next ravine southwest of the site. Remediation works completed by September 19, 2006, just prior to completion of the tunnel, included widening the road by cutting back the base of the upper slope, removing about 60,000 m3 of unstable material above the road, benching the slope above the road, building a new retaining wall and subdrain at the base of the road cut, improving surface drainage, and planting trees. Although the pipeline was to be rerouted through the tunnel, away from the unstable area, stabilization work was performed to allow continued use of the San Antonio– Toccate Road through the failure area.
Inter-American Development Bank (2006), “Camisea Project: Incident Report”.
SF36292.003 A0F0 0607 0806
June 8. 2006. 2006. General area of the third spill incident. 2007 Landslide Walls Figure 7. and September 19. SF36292. at KP 200+700. Top: View upstream showing large landslide above and below ROW.003 A0F0 0607 0806 19 . Photographs taken on June 14. Bottom: View downstream along ROW showing alignment of temporary bypass pipeline (beneath stacked sacks) and new retaining wall at base of cut slope. during stabilization work.
Figure 8. In summary. Figure 8 shows the ruptured NGL pipe section that was completely severed by the landslide in a ductile overload tension failure. 2007 MCI performed the metallurgical investigation of the pipe from this incident. MCI conducted various tests to quantify the material’s strength. SF36292. hardness.June 8. MCI confirmed that the weld was in compliance with the applicable codes. at KP 200+700. and ductility and determined that it showed satisfactory properties and compliance with the applicable codes.003 A0F0 0607 0806 20 . MCI photograph of pipe from the third spill incident. MCI determined that the fracture had no distinct fracture origin and occurred in the base metal and heat-affected zone next to the circumferential weld. Exponent concludes that the most significant contributing factor to the failure of the pipe was external geotechnical forces induced by a large landslide that extended across the ROW. Exponent reviewed MCI’s investigation and visually inspected the failed pipe section.
TgP operations personnel in Lurin identified this rupture by detecting a reduction in flow downstream at PS #2 (KP 108). both the NGL and NG pipelines were covered with a reinforced concrete layer at the river crossing. at the crossing of the Paratori River (KP 50+900). After installation of the pipelines.219 inch. An inline pipe tool to clean the pipeline. Furthermore. the first action to perform after indication of a leak is to stop the pumping and start an operating analysis to identify the segment of pipe involved in the leak.1 m below the stream bottom.0 m during the rainy season.1 m for the NGL pipeline. Consequently. 26 27 28 The “as-built” drawing at this specific location identifies a minimum burring depth of 2. the NGL pipeline has a diameter of 14 inches and a nominal wall thickness of 0.5 Fourth Incident The fourth incident was detected on November 24. 2007 3. operations personnel closed the block valves 55 minutes after pumping stopped and the leak analysis was completed. a cleaning pig with plates was passed through the entire pipeline. The pressure reduction was not sufficiently large to activate the automatic rupture detection mechanism of the block valves upstream and downstream of the rupture. Both pipelines were originally buried about 2. SF36292.003 A0F0 0607 0806 21 . At 05:00. which can rise 1. In addition to the protective polyethylene cover that sheaths each pipeline. the hydrostatic test of this section was performed and did not indicate any leakage.26 At this location. which is standard construction practice.27 TgP has indicated to Exponent that the sizing plates did not identify any significant deformation to the pipe. and ascend a steep slope on the opposite side of the river.0 m in diameter had been installed along the river banks to protect the pipeline from lateral erosion. 2005. 2005.28 Estimates29 of total NGL volume leaked indicate a loss of approximately 736 m3. The October 2004 GEOTEC report describes the river as carrying a high flow of water. pumping was stopped by TgP. The river is less than 10 m wide. including this river crossing section. No fires or explosions occurred as a consequence of the rupture. A protective rockfill layer of boulders 1. According to TGP procedures.0 to 3.0 to 2. but the fast flow and the presence of large boulders (approaching 3 m in maximum dimension) suggest a steep gradient. the operational flow rate decreased by approximately 20% over a period of 5 minutes. The pipelines approach the river on relatively flat terrain.June 8. At approximately 04:55 in the morning of November 24.
June 8. and is nearly vertical above the groove. Exponent participated in the initial metallurgical laboratory investigation of this rupture in July 2006. MCI’s external examination of this pipe section revealed a deep dent and an external groove that bisected the approximately 7. A flash flood reportedly preceded the rupture. 2006.5-inch-long rupture. Exponent made observations and interviewed TgP personnel who were familiar with the construction and stabilization measures at this site. a steel truss bridge was installed to support an aerial bypass pipeline. Excavation revealed that the concrete coating of the NGL pipeline was missing over a length of a few meters and that the slightly-higher-positioned NG pipeline’s concrete coating showed some signs of erosion. No girth welds were present in the vicinity of the rupture. The groove was more likely caused by a gradual application of pressure due to construction equipment than by the scraping movement of rocks carried by streamflow.003 A0F0 0607 0806 22 . The maximum water level was reported to be on the order of 2 to 3 m above the stream level observed during our site visit (see Figure 9). The groove itself is inclined at an angle of 55 degrees with respect to the pipe axis. Selected photographs of the area from this site visit are shown in Figure 9. The original NGL pipeline section that crossed the river was excavated in late May 2006. “Camisea Project: Incident Report”. 29 Inter-American Development Bank (2006). SF36292. TgP removed the section of the NGL pipeline containing the rupture and sent it to MCI for metallurgical evaluation. Testing of the pipe material from this location revealed satisfactory material characteristics. Figure 10 shows that the rupture is inclined 50 degrees to the pipe axis below the groove. 2007 On June 13. Subsequent to the failure of the NGL pipeline.
Bottom: View looking upstream.003 A0F0 0607 0806 23 . at KP 50+900 showing river crossing and new steel truss bridge carrying the NGL bypass pipeline. Top: View looking downstream (uphill). 2006.June 8. Site of fourth spill incident. 2007 Approximate Location of Rupture Approximate High Water Mark at Rupture Figure 9. SF36292. Photographs taken on June 13.
Indeed. This triggering loading event could have been associated with the flash floods that immediately preceded detection of the leak. Black material is the damaged protective polyethylene cover. 2007 Figure 10. with the pipe being horizontally aligned and NGL product flow being from the right to the left. although the initial mechanical damage that caused the dent and groove initiated the subsequent rupture. SF36292.003 A0F0 0607 0806 24 . the pipe wall at this location apparently was capable of containing the NGL fluid until some unknown external loading event caused the already weakened pipe wall to fail in ductile overload at the damaged area.June 8. it was not sufficient to breach the wall of the pipe. It is currently believed that the damage sustained to both the NGL pipeline’s concrete coating and to the pipe itself was most likely associated with external mechanical damage caused by human activity. In summary. Observed groove (white arrows) and rupture (red arrows) on the outer surface of the pipe.
a burial depth of approximately 1 to 2 m.June 8. A few seconds later. No fatalities. TgP’s control-room personnel in Lurin detected this rupture following a pressure-drop warning from an upstream block valve at 15:27:00 in the afternoon. which was apparently ignited by a source in a farm dwelling located downhill from the rupture. as shown in Figure 11. Pumping at the upstream pump station (PS #2) was reported to have ceased 20 seconds after the pressure drop was detected.30 below a saddle. The geological and geotechnical reports of this sector indicate the potential for slope instability to be “high” to “very high. Site soils are described as wet. Inter-American Development Bank (2006). The slopes at the site are gentle to moderate and are bisected in some places by shallow ravines.000 m. The downstream block valve was closed at 15:32:12. the NGL pipeline has a diameter of 14 inches and a nominal wall thickness of 0.31 on a ridge about 2 km southwest of Rio Cumpirusiato. The NGL pipeline at the rupture location has a slope of about 15% to 20%. 2006. At the point of rupture. Subsequent site inspection revealed that the NGL pipeline was completely severed at the rupture point. and an elevation of approximately 1. The NG pipeline was buried at a slope and depth similar to the NGL pipeline. were reported. but with good surface drainage and moderately good subsurface drainage. The rupture of the NGL pipeline resulted in an explosion. the pipe was near the base of a slope above an intermediate bench. 2007 3. generally on a hillside. in the jungle sector at KP 125+950.375 inch. SF36292. A saddle is a low point on a ridgeline. this block valve automatically started to close and was verified to be closed at 15:28:12.32 30 31 32 A swale is a small valley. “Camisea Project: Incident Report”. At this location.003 A0F0 0607 0806 25 . The resulting hydrodynamic force of the escaping NGL formed a sinkhole.6 Fifth Incident The fifth incident occurred on March 4. approximately 5 minutes after the pressure drop was detected. Osinerg filings indicate that 661 m3 of NGL was released during this rupture.” with medium potential for mudflows. This section of the pipeline is in a broad topographic swale. but two injuries.
General area of the fifth spill incident. 2007 New Stabilization Measures Figure 11. 2006. Bottom: View downstream (upslope) across excavation made to remove unstable soil. Photographs taken on June 13. during stabilization work.003 A0F0 0607 0806 26 .June 8. at KP 125+950. SF36292. Top: View upstream (downslope) along the ROW.
The crack then became critical. landslide was located in the area that has since been excavated. Exponent inspected this site and interviewed TgP personnel who are familiar with the construction and stabilization measures. to form a flat fracture that followed a 10. Selected photographs of the area from that visit are shown in Figure 11. lowest. uppermost. and the third. and the pipe wall was breached and severed around its complete circumference. SF36292. installation of subdrains along and across the ROW. after which its rate of growth increased to approximately 0. interconnected soil movement of at least three landslides that occurred at about the same time. 2007 On June 13 and September 20. excavation of unstable soil to the left of the point of rupture and extending left of the ROW. MCI was retained to perform the metallurgical investigation of this rupture at KP 125+950. the second was at the point of failure. MCI determined that the ductility.01 inch per load step. with rapid incremental tearing.055 inch (see Figure 12). and construction of most of the length of a concrete-lined channel along the right edge of the ROW to replace the original berm-type drainage channel lined with sacks of soil cement. This nucleation zone was characterized by mostly ductile narrow slant fractures that joined to form a single large crack with a depth of approximately 0. construction of a buried retaining wall parallel to and to the left of the NGL pipeline with stabilizing ties to the pipeline. cleanup of hydrocarbon-containing soil. The first. 2006.5-inch-long arc.June 8. it was determined that the nucleated crack grew through about half the thickness of the pipe wall. was upslope along the ROW.003 A0F0 0607 0806 27 . MCI performed a detailed investigation of both the fracture surface of the NGL pipeline and the material properties of the pipe. As with the preceding four failures. strength of the pipe materials and weld materials were in compliance with the required codes. Subsequent loading propagated this crack. hardness. MCI concluded that crack nucleation occurred at the bottom portion of the pipe in the heat-affected zone of the weld. Remediation and stabilization work completed before our visit included repair of the pipeline. The rupture was believed to have been caused by a shallow landslide that was part of a complex. Using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). construction of the foundation and first above-ground layer of a retaining wall in the excavated area.
June 8. with the outer surface of the pipe being the top portion of the photograph. We also believe that the geotechnical stabilization measures implemented after the rupture have significantly reduced the future risk of landslides at this location. and this shallow slide overlies an older. indicate that both pipelines pass through a shallow active landslide at this location. Recent geotechnical studies by IGL. larger landslide. SF36292. We therefore conclude that external forces produced by ground movement. likely preceded or accompanied by washout of the pipeline’s bedding. MCI photograph showing fracture surface of NGL pipeline at the fifth spill incident. White arrows identify the narrow. The cause of movement of the shallow landslide was likely the infiltration of surface water into the ground due.33 as well as Exponent’s field inspection of the rupture site. were likely a substantial factor in the rupture of the NGL pipeline at this location. in part. to the truncation of a natural drainage crossing the ROW and direct precipitation and surface runoff. Each zone is numbered. slanted fracture associated with crack nucleation. Blue arrows demarcate three distinct fracture zones. We also understand that a local inhabitant had altered some of the surface drainage in this area prior to the rupture. 33 Ingeneria y Geotecnia LTDA is a geotechnical firm in Columbia that has extensive experience in jungle areas.003 A0F0 0607 0806 28 . at an amplification of 14×. 2007 Figure 12.
external loading is responsible for the formation of such wrinkles if no thermal stresses are induced. The location of this spill incident is shown on Figure 1. and this leak was discovered during planned activities of TgP’s pipeline integrity management program. TgP reported that only a small amount (approximately 0. at KP 125+500.” April 16th. 34 Coga. Figure 13 depicts the excavated pipe section with the localized wrinkle away from the girth welds. however. Typically. 2007 3. Figure 13. and this analysis is based on the material submitted by TgP to Exponent.7 Sixth Incident Recently. To date. Excavated NGL pipe section from the sixth spill incident. Exponent has not conducted a complete investigation. with protected wrinkle from which NGL was reported to have been leaking. 2007. 2007.3 m3)34 of NGL was released. “Estamacion Del Volumen De Perdida De NGL En KP 125+500.003 A0F0 0607 0806 29 . including the reports TgP submitted to OSINERG. TgP identified as part of its pipeline integrity analysis a sixth incident of the 14-inchdiameter NGL pipeline on April 2.June 8. SF36292. TgP is currently investigating the root cause of this incident. TgP informed us that the NGL pipeline was repaired by mid-April 2007.
respectively.003 A0F0 0607 0806 30 . a sizable landslide ultimately overcame these measures and both undermined and overtopped the road and ROW. In both cases. The pressure fluctuations at this location. though frequent. For the fourth incident. 2007 3.June 8. Hence. The hydrogen crack escaped detection by the post-welding radiography because of the inherent time delay of hydrogen cracking. which occurred at KP 8+850 and KP 125+950. While some measures to mitigate this geologic risk were taken during construction. which helped delay the propagation of the crack through the remaining wall thickness. the crack resulted in a through-wall leak of about 10 inches in extent. and subsequent crack growth due to normal operational pressure fluctuations need be only minimal to reach a critical crack depth that causes the remaining ligament ahead of the crack to fail.8 Summary and Conclusions Exponent’s review of the first five NGL pipeline spill incidents identified similarities in the fracture surfaces of the first and fifth incidents. ultimately perforating the pipe wall and releasing the NGL at a very slow rate. Analysis performed to date indicates that this dent was not 35 This is a rather deep crack.35 Our current understanding is that the combination of hydrostatic load cycles and subsequent operational pressure fluctuations caused the initial hydrogen-induced crack to be further destabilized. Exponent’s investigation identified unstable geologic conditions as a significant contributor to the ruptures. the crack resulted in complete severance of the pipe. hydrogen-induced crack in the weld. even though the crack extended to approximately 90% of the wall thickness. In the case of the first incident. The second incident. appears to have been primarily the result of a time-delayed. at KP 222+500. current information suggests that the rupture of the NGL pipe was induced by mechanical damage to the exterior concrete coating and a dent in the exterior wall of the NGL pipeline. at KP 125+950. progressive soil loading is the likely driver that propagated an initial crack and induced the rupture of the NGL pipeline. are relatively small. The third incident occurred in an area that was well studied from a geologic perspective and was known to be an area of very high risk of ground failure. The toughness of the pipe material allowed the pipe to pass subsequent hydrostatic testing. in the fifth incident. In both cases. at KP 50+900. at KP 8+850. SF36292. the rupture of the pipe at this location is attributed to overload caused by a substantial landslide.
Indeed. the pipe wall at this location was apparently capable of containing the NGL fluid until some unknown external loading event caused the already-weakened pipe wall to fail in ductile overload in the damaged area. This triggering loading event could have been associated with the flash floods that immediately preceded detection of the leak.June 8. 2007 caused by contact with a boulder being washed downstream. and no final conclusions concerning its origin and relation to the other incidents have been reached to date. The sixth incident is still under investigation.003 A0F0 0607 0806 31 . SF36292.
SF36292. whether usual or unusual. The Camisea Transportation System was designed to the requirements of standards issued by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) that are national standards of the United States. and the NG pipeline was required to conform to ASME B31. Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline. construction. 2007 4 Design-Related Risks 4. Part 192. with guidance from the geotechnical engineer or geologist. we review the hydraulic analysis and the geotechnical design considerations for the system during the design phase. where the sizing of pumps. operation and maintenance of pipeline systems. and pipes is performed.1 Design Background Several different engineering disciplines are involved in designing pipelines. The primary purpose of these codes is to establish requirements for design. Specifically. respectively. but are fundamentally intended to ensure pipeline integrity and safe operation.4 (Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids). These design load requirements vary slightly from code to code.8 (Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems) as well as the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).003 A0F0 0607 0806 32 . the designer needs to exercise due care and consideration for all reasonable and expected load cases. valves. wherein the designer considers load cases other than the internal design pressure in the pipe. inspection. Rather. This information is carried over to the next step. Commonly. This typically leads to an iterative design process between the engineers performing the hydraulic and the pipe stress analyses. these codes do not provide requirements for all conditions. In this section. a pipe stress analysis. Seismic hazards and scour at river crossings are evaluated in Sections 8 and 9. but reliable input is sought from geotechnical engineers and geologists to evaluate the manner in which the pipe will interact with soils and other environmental components. testing. the NGL pipeline was required to conform to ASME B31. The mechanical engineer is ultimately responsible for the overall pipeline design. Title 49. the first step in the mechanical design process is the hydraulic analysis. However.June 8. that the designer may encounter.
The profiles show good agreement.June 8.2. indicating that only minor deviations should be expected between the design calculations and the as-built alignment.1 General Review Exponent reviewed the design hydraulic analysis and operational data from TgP’s SCADA system. Using this information. with the graph origin being in Malvinas. Figure 14 provides a comparison of the elevation profile of the pipeline for the first 550 km between the initial design and the as-built condition. Comparison of the pipeline elevation profile along the ROW. SF36292. This internal pressure is then used to compute a minimum allowable pipe wall thickness that adheres to the code design requirements for the internal pressure. The hydraulic modeling of the system requires as input a well-defined pipeline profile and the hydraulic performance requirements of the pipeline.003 A0F0 0607 0806 33 . 2007 4.2 Hydraulic Design Risks 4. the hydraulic analysis determines the internal pressures along the pipeline route. Figure 14.
6 0. and 226. Figure 15 provides a graphical depiction of the ratio of the maximum internal operating pressure to the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) per ASME B31.7 0. Based on this internal pressure.9 0. Ratio of the maximum operating pressure to the MAOP along the ROW of the NGL pipeline.4. with the smallest margins typically existing downstream of the four pump stations.2. the steady-state analysis was carried out for flow rates of 10. SF36292.2 Hydraulic Design of NGL Pipeline The hydraulic analysis can be divided into two parts: the steady-state analysis and the transient analysis.5 0. 2007 4.000 BPD (barrels per day).1 #1 PS PS #2 PS #3 PS #4 Maximum Operating Pressure/MAOP 1 0. a minimum allowable wall thickness was determined. For the NGL pipeline.2 1.June 8. where this ratio is to be smaller than 1 at all times.8 0. Our review indicates that the hydraulic analysis relied on typical modeling techniques to compute the internal pressures along the NGL pipeline. 1. at KP 0.1 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Distance (Km) Figure 15.2 0.4 0.000 to 70. 108.3 0.003 A0F0 0607 0806 34 . 209.
a transient study was performed using the Stoner36 pipe simulation software. our review indicates that the hydraulic analysis of the NGL pipeline has been properly executed in conformance with code requirements. 4. SF36292.June 8. The hydraulic analysis relied on typical modeling techniques to compute the pipe friction coefficient and associated pressure drops. Based on this internal pressure. In summary. pumping capacity. The maximum operating pressure is the blocked-in pressure if the block valve at the end of the pipeline were to be closed. and are in compliance with ASME B31. pump shutdown and pump startup. and no undue hydraulic risks were introduced. The requirements of ASME B31. The largest transient operating pressures are found along the first 50 km of the NGL pipeline and downstream of PS #2 at KP 108. Our review indicates that the considered transient events are at all times smaller than 1. the mechanical design was carried out in compliance with applicable codes and engineering practice. Furthermore. The steady-state analysis was carried out for flow rates ranging from 205 to 215 MMSCFD (million standard cubic feet per day).4.1 times the allowable MAOP. This static analysis determines the internal operating pressures along the ROW.2.3 Hydraulic Design of NG Pipeline Techint’s hydraulic analysis of the NG pipeline included a steady-state analysis and a blocked-in load condition providing the largest pressures. the actual internal pressure. In addition. and pipeline control in the operating pipeline appear to be consistent with the hydraulic analysis. 2007 In addition to this static analysis. Accordingly. flow rates. because the hydraulic analysis shows that the Camisea NGL pipeline does not exceed either the static or transient MAOP. or any combination of these events. a minimum allowable wall 36 Stoner Pipeline Simulator (SPS) is widely used for the transient flow simulation of natural gas and liquid transmission systems.003 A0F0 0607 0806 35 . an analysis was performed that included a compressor station at KP 208 to increase the flow rate. and the minimum specified delivery pressure at Lurin is 40 barg. This analysis determined transient pressures along the NGL pipeline due to valve closure. The maximum delivery pressure of the NG pipeline at Malvinas is approximately 147 barg.4 concerning the internal pressure design have been met.
Operating Pressure/Design Pressure 0. In summary. The largest margins are typically found at river crossings where the pipe has been thickened. The mechanical design was carried out in compliance with codes and general engineering practice. The operational internal pressure and flow rates appear to be consistent with the results of the hydraulic analysis. and no undue hydraulic risks were introduced. Figure 16 clearly illustrates that the design pressure is.9 0. at all times. The requirements of ASME B31. Ratio of the maximum operating pressure divided by the design pressure along the ROW of the NG pipeline.8 0. 1.6 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 Distance (km) Figure 16.7 0.003 A0F0 0607 0806 36 . 2007 thickness was determined per ASME B31. SF36292. larger than the largest expected operating pressure.8 concerning the internal pressure design appear to have been met.June 8.1 1 Max.8. the hydraulic analysis of the NG pipeline is adequate. since the ratio of them is at all times smaller than 1.
the system designers opted to construct geotechnical stabilization measures to mitigate potential external soil loads. 2003. debris flows.” February 2002. and conducted field inspections along the proposed pipe route. Given the challenging geotechnical conditions and diverse terrain present along the pipeline. Sierra and Costa Sections.3 Geotechnical Design Risks ASME codes require the designer to demonstrate that all reasonable foreseeable load conditions. Both the Felix and Verastegui reports recommended further geological and geotechnical studies during construction. Natural Gas and Liquid Natural Gas Pipelines. The Golder study identified the five main geotechnical and geologic hazards in the selva sector as being landslides. Route of Camisea Pipeline. In addition.” December 2001. which include external loads. “Pipeline –Sector Selva – Geologic Inspection of the Route – Critical Zones and Pumping Stations 2 and 3.” March 21. “Final Report – Geologic and Geotechncial Reconnaissance. topographic information. particularly in the selva sector. Golder developed an algorithm to evaluate the risk at sites along the route and identify zones of concern.003 A0F0 0607 0806 37 . MR Associates.June 8. Prior to construction. be considered during the design process. with the stated objective of determining the geologic and geotechnical feasibility of the proposed alignment. MR Associates40 (MRA) conducted a preliminary geologic and geotechnical investigation in the sierra and costa sectors. 37 Golder reviewed aerial photographs and satellite images. Golder Associates (Golder) conducted a preliminary geologic and geotechnical investigation in the selva sector. imposed by soil pressures or ground movements. with the stated objective of determining the geologic and geotechnical feasibility of the proposed alignment. and geologic maps. and conducted field inspections along the proposed 37 38 39 40 Golder Associates. 2007 4. MRA reviewed aerial photographs. satellite images. Route in Sector Selva – Project Camisea. Orlando Felix Salvador. and flooding/river erosion. Dario Verastegui. “Final Report – Geologic and Geotechnical Reconnaissance. “Geotechnical Inspection of Route – Camisea Pipeline – Sector Selva. SF36292. to identify additional unstable zones and recommend stabilization measures. External soil loads can be addressed by either designing the pipeline to withstand external soil loads. rock falls. or adequately mitigating the geotechnical hazards.” March 2002. Orlando Felix38 and Dario Verastegui39 performed more detailed geologic and geotechnical evaluation at thirteen critical sites in the selva sector and made preliminary recommendations to mitigate hazards. hillside erosion.
identifying locations where excavation cuts would reduce the stability of the slopes near the pipes. We have independently verified that the computed design pressures are code compliant and in good agreement with the measured operational pressures along the whole length of both pipelines. any risks associated with the internal pressure aspects of the design are minimal and consistent with other pipelines. Therefore. Our review indicates that the pipe wall thickness is sufficient to contain the internal pressures of the transported hydrocarbon products along the entire length of the pipeline (i. MRA recommended implementing surface and subsurface drainage facilities to prevent erosion and soil creep.41 Code compliance is established if the designer demonstrates that all specific code requirements and all reasonably foreseeable load conditions are addressed by the design. and recommending corrosion prevention near the costa sections. debris flows. as evidenced by the geotechnical and geologic studies. 2007 pipe route. 4. Our review revealed that the pipeline was designed such that external soil loads would be mitigated by geotechnical SF36292. external loads were expected to be an important consideration in designing and constructing the system. The preliminary geotechnical and geologic reports and more specific geotechnical studies performed during the design phase indicated that the geotechnical and geologic conditions would be complex and challenging along the alignment. increasing the depth of pipe embedment at sites susceptible to erosion. and evaluation of alternative route alignments where active slides or marshy lands were identified. hydraulic risk).4 Conclusions The system was designed to comply with ASME engineering code requirements.e.. Foreseeable load conditions apply to internal pressures and to external loads imposed by soil pressures or ground movement. or scour.June 8. Given the demanding route of these pipelines through the jungle and over the mountains.003 A0F0 0607 0806 38 .
003 A0F0 0607 0806 39 . 2007 stabilization measures to be constructed at sites deemed to pose a geotechnical or geological hazard. 41 ASME B31.4 [Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids] is the applicable Code for the NGL pipeline.8 [Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems] is the applicable code for the larger NG pipeline. and ASME B31. SF36292.June 8.
42 Techint finalized the pipeline alignment. 2007 5 Construction-Related Risks 5. grading along the ROW typically consisted of cutting into the ridge or hillside and placing the excavated material as “side-cast” or “spill” fill on the downhill side(s) of the clearing.003 A0F0 0607 0806 40 . Responsibility for constructing the system was divided into the selva. Exponent interviewed key individuals involved in the construction. Techint employed up to 10. fuel depots. Due to limitations imposed by the topography of the ridges and the narrow lane of clearing (25 meters). with each spread constructing an assigned section of both pipelines.e. Each sector was supervised by a Project Manager and a Construction Manager. and loading docks) in 2001. 42 The rainy season is a time period of elevated precipitation from late October until April. the cleared section of the ROW was typically restricted to 25 meters or less. In order to minimize the impact on the environment. and deviations from this pre-approved corridor had to be granted by the Peruvian government.June 8.000 people on 12 spreads. The pipeline was constructed simultaneously along the ROW between 2002 and early 2004. SF36292. both of whom were ultimately responsible for construction of the pipeline in their respective sectors. pipe staging sites. and mitigation measures were constructed at that time. The pipe route had to be contained within the 3-kmwide. who informed us that the ground conditions encountered during grading and installation of the pipe were assessed by geotechnical engineers. access roads.. The first step was to clear and grade the ROW. camps. At the end of the 2001–2002 rainy season. sierra. government-mandated corridor. TgP decided to preferentially build the pipeline along or near topographic ridges of the government-mandated 3-km-wide corridor. and costa sectors.1 Pipeline Construction Characteristics Techint commenced construction of support infrastructure (i. Within this 3-km-wide corridor. During construction.
Each weld was x-rayed 24 hours after completion of the weld. or socalled pillows. Techint used two general types of construction methods to install the pipes. Figure 17 shows an example of the standard construction method in hilly terrain. If the terrain was flat. The “special installation” method was reserved for very steep terrain with a grade more than 35%. and later joined to the already-laid pipeline. if the ROW was sufficiently wide. because it was the only available route for transportation. Afterward. and protective measures were reportedly taken to prevent the soaking of the excavated material. upon which the pipeline would initially rest. The pipe trench was then dug and prepared for the pipeline by placing several sand bags. the pipes were welded together into a continuous section measuring several hundred meters in length. as depicted in Figure 18.003 A0F0 0607 0806 41 . resting each pipe on two blocks. and sites located along roads and narrow mountain ridges. SF36292. The excavated material was placed next to the trench. The engineer responsible for laying the pipe determined the spacing and number of side-booms and other auxiliary equipment to be used. Techint preferred to string out the pipe prior to welding. The welded pipe sections were lowered into the trench. Another “special installation” method was also employed at river crossings. depending on the terrain: “standard” and “special. 2007 The pipes typically were transported to the individual construction sites along the ROW itself.June 8. trenching may have occurred first.” The “standard installation” method was used in flat to hilly terrain along the majority of the pipeline ROW. In some instances. every 3 to 5 meters on the trench bottom. the side-booms moved continuously forward with roller-equipped slings. Techint’s standard installation method appears to have been flexible and adaptable to specific site conditions.
Figure 18. SF36292.003 A0F0 0607 0806 42 . Trenching and stockpiling of cuttings at KP 391. Standard installation of NGL pipeline at KP 107. 2007 Figure 17.June 8.
a backhoe carrying the pipe was winched from the top of the hill to the end of the pipeline to place the pipe in position. Another specialized construction variation arose at ridges and roads. Figure 19. which provided for the use of selected backfill to contain stones of sizes up to 1½ by 1½ inches. When possible. the machine depicted in Figure 19 was used to backfill a portion of the trench. Backfilling was finalized by forming a crown on top of the filled trench and driving an approximately 4-ton vehicle over the trench to achieve some degree of compaction. SF36292.June 8. Once the trench was dug. The pipe was clamped and welded to the pipeline. This construction method allowed advancement of only approximately two pipe segments per day. In locations where the pipeline followed a road. Backfilling of the trench had to satisfy Techint’s construction specification 2794-L-SP-0045. rather than in long strings as was done in more gently sloping terrain. thereby constructing the pipeline segment by segment.003 A0F0 0607 0806 43 . 2007 Techint’s special installation procedure for steep hills started with trenching. Placement of selected fill as bedding at KP 358 using a machine that separates larger stones from the remaining fill. where the NG and NGL pipeline share a single narrow trench that may be stepped to further reduce the trench width. concrete plates were placed on top of the backfill to minimize vehicle loads acting on the pipes.
the pipe was coated with a thick concrete layer to provide ballast and protection (Construction Specification 2794-L-SP-0043: Concrete Casing of Pipes). The most commonly used technique relied on trenching the riverbed and laying the pipe into the trench. Figure 20. the construction methods employed standard engineering procedures. Figure 20 shows the laying of the pipe over the Manugali River at KP 92. Micro-tunneling was used solely at the Urubamba River crossing. Laying of pipe over the Manugali River at KP 92. blasting was required to trench. 2007 Techint used two types of techniques to construct river crossings: micro-tunneling and trenching. SF36292.June 8. Typically. In some cases.003 A0F0 0607 0806 44 . As discussed below.
Additionally. GEOTEC documented numerous manifestations of instability in the selva sector.2 Geotechnical Construction Characteristics During construction of the pipelines. 2007 5. The report pointed out that the results were intended to prioritize areas for SF36292. They pointed out that other sites not described in the report could also have stability problems in the future due to the dynamic nature of the terrain and significant precipitation. rockfalls. people. The report also noted the potential long-term risk to the pipelines arising from failures in side-cast fill downslope of the ROW. TgP requested that GEOTEC complete an extensive risk study to characterize the postconstruction stability conditions of the ROW. landslides.003 A0F0 0607 0806 45 . Supervision of construction required an evaluation of future risks of erosion. reduce. Sections of the pipelines constructed along roadways were identified as being at higher risk of failure. as well as areas of successful geotechnical stabilization efforts. GEOTEC believed that the landslide risk was highest between about KP 50 and KP 90. a consortium of geotechnical consultants named GEOTEC was retained by TgP to develop and supervise the implementation of the geotechnical protection work from KP 0 to KP 520. whereas cut-slope failures were judged to pose the greatest threat when the cut is in colluvium because of its origin as a landslide deposit that could reactivate. GEOTEC was also responsible for evaluating the geotechnical and geologic risks after installation of the system and commencement of system operation in August 2004. but other sites already showed signs of increased deterioration. detailing examples of areas of erosion and ground movement. and control potential damages from natural phenomena to the system. GEOTEC concluded that most of the slope failures evaluated in the sierra sector had occurred during construction and were believed to have reached equilibrium but to be at risk of reactivation if subjected to an earthquake or a harsh winter. two months after the system was put into operation.43 The report concentrated on critical areas of the selva sector and included descriptions of specific stations along the ROW. GEOTEC cautioned that maintenance in the selva sector would be required for at least the first 5 years of operation. In October 2004. and the environment. and to a lesser extent in the sierra sector. GEOTEC concluded that geotechnical stabilization works had improved some of the sites during construction. and river erosion. and recommend measures to prevent. and between about KP 175 and KP 197.June 8.
and shallow landsliding. Detailed stability analyses were performed for critical areas. Proyecto Camisea. and discussions with Techint employees who were directly involved in the construction of the pipeline. At some narrow ridges. Exponent generally concludes that this approach was appropriate for pipeline integrity purposes and helped reduce environmental impacts. Lineas de Conduccion de GN y LGN. October 2004. In many of these locations. necessitating geotechnical mitigation measures. no date. Field Reconnaissance on July 17.” memo to Lucio Costarrosa from Milos Stepanek. 44 Camisea Project. coupled with the government mandate to limit the cleared section of the ROW to 25 meters. During our inspections. not all of these side-cast fills were adequately stabilized during construction. Exponent 43 Estudio de Riesgos por Fenomenos Naturales. Exponent noted sites being stabilized where the geotechnical stabilization measures originally installed during or immediately after pipeline construction were not adequate to stabilize the ROW. Pacobamba Route Sector. Variant Pisco.44. conservative values were assumed. 2002. The October 2004 GEOTEC report describes numerous sites at which thick fill stockpiles had experienced ground movement in the form of settlement. cracking. SF36292. Based on our field inspections. but TgP is currently addressing this issue through the stabilization measures discussed in Section 6. When only limited detailed data were available. where possible. During our site inspections. no date.003 A0F0 0607 0806 46 .June 8. 5. excavated soil and rock materials had washed or slid down the steep ridge flanks. TgP decided to preferentially build the pipeline along or near topographic ridges. The route selection along mountain ridges. they ultimately became a source of concern related to the potential to exert external soil pressures on the pipes. 45 In our opinion. Although these side-cast fills were generally placed outside the limits of the pipe trenches. necessitated the creation of side-cast fills in some particular areas where there was a limitation of the cleared ROW section. 45 “Camisea Project. 2007 maintenance.1.” memo to Lucio Costarrosa from Milos Stepanek. soil saturation is mentioned as a key factor in the instability of stockpiles.3 Clearing Related Risks As mentioned previously in Section 5.
A detailed description of the stabilization measures undertaken by TgP in 2006 is given in Section 6. Therefore. unless the slope is sufficiently stabilized. Figures 17 to 20).. The materials used for the pipe bedding and embedment were derived from excavated native materials.003 A0F0 0607 0806 47 . but rather will fall and stack on the sides of the pipe. Except in special circumstances. would likely flow freely around and beneath the pipe. will not flow.g. 5. Exponent reviewed representative photographs taken during construction of the project in the three sectors and at river crossings (e. Clods of clay. This is generally not a recommended practice. The ability of material dumped into the trench to flow around and beneath the pipe is dependent on the size of the gap on the sides and beneath the pipe.4 Trenching-Related Risks Based on our discussions with Techint construction personnel. likely represent some of the worst conditions for producing material in a suitable form for backfilling the pipe. potentially creating a large. The moisture conditions in the ground varied from dry (in the coastal sector) to wet (in the jungle sector) to saturated (at river crossings). During our field inspection. the trench was backfilled using material processed from excavated material stockpiled along the ROW. and the material type and wetness of the backfill. we noted that TgP constructed many geotechnical stabilization measures in 2006 to address the issues described above. primarily because of the wet ground conditions and heavy precipitation that wets the stockpiles. specifically in natural drainages. The backfill around the pipe reportedly was lightly to moderately compacted. for example. Dry sand. soil conditions in the trench are expected to have varied significantly along the alignment. the material surrounding the pipe was dumped via a mechanized conveyor.June 8. using the tracks and/or wheels of the construction vehicles. continuous void beneath the pipe and interspersed voids among the clods. which were known to vary substantially along the alignment. 2007 observed a few instances where this excessive material was apparently used to widen the ROW. The conditions in the selva sector. which provide a glimpse of the range of ground conditions that existed during construction of the pipe zones and possible current conditions. SF36292. on the other hand.
5 Pipe Material–Related Risks The system was constructed using more than 100.003 A0F0 0607 0806 48 . and two were defective longitudinal welds. Argentina. Adherence to DIN 30670. as well as material sampling and quality assurance procedures.000 individual pipe segments. and Buenos Aires. Brazil. 2007 Potential geotechnical risks from trench conditions relate primarily to internal soil erosion (“piping”). The pipe manufacturers’ records indicate that these two pipe manufacturers are located in Pindamonhangaba.June 8. 5. the hydrostatic testing and the metallurgical analysis of the five spill incidents) indicate that the pipe material was in compliance with the required codes. is intended to ensure the integrity of the outer HDPE coating. A review of the pipe book46 and the pipe manufacturing and coating records indicates that the entire stock of pipe segments used for this system was fabricated at one of two pipe mills during 2002 and 2003. Additionally. hydrostatic testing revealed that none of the 59.e. These electric-resistance welded tubular products were manufactured per API 5L standard.193 installed pipes of the NGL pipelines had pipe material defects. One of these three defects was related to the rolled plate material.906 installed pipes of the NG pipeline and only three of the 49. as described in Specification 2794-P-SP-00005. All three pipes SF36292. Available data (i. each approximately 12 m in length. Specifically. SP. API 5L provides provisions to minimize potential risks to pipe integrity that can arise from the fabrication of the steel plate and the longitudinal electric-resistance weld by requiring minimum material performance.. We understand that TgP is in the process of installing piezometers in the ROW and inspecting the performance of the subterranean drainage systems as a means to assess the potential for internal soil erosion. Documents and evidence reviewed showed that the pipe was specifically built for this system and consistent with API 5L requirements. the loss of backfill from erosion could result in external soil pressures acting on the pipe. Without proper use of flow barriers to reduce the flow of water traveling through the backfill (“ditch breakers”). Each segment was then coated with an outer highdensity polyethylene (HDPE) layer to protect the pipe’s exterior from the environment. flat steel plates were rolled into a tubular cross-section and longitudinally welded into a pipe segment.
2003 7 8 NGL NG KP 210 KP 388 January 9. ID 1 2 Leaks identified during hydrostatic testing of the pipeline Location KP 9+906 KP 1+726 Date August 8. because hydrostatic testing provided an effective means of identifying longitudinal welding defects. Pipeline integrity– related risks associated with the manufacture of the coating are typically low. The prevention of surface damage to the protective outer layer is an important step in enhancing the protection against external corrosion. For details on these three leaks. at each circumferential pipe joint. 2004 March 23. and 5 in Table 1.8. 2003 July 27. risks to the integrity of the HDPE coating arise during the various stages of moving and handling the coated pipes. SF36292. 2004 October 4.June 8. overlapping the adjacent pipe to provide continuous surface protection. as can be seen from the more comprehensive discussion of the hydrostatic testing given in Section 5.003 A0F0 0607 0806 49 . A failure of this protective coating system is significant to the pipeline’s 46 The pipe book lists relevant pipe data. 2003 External damage Partial circumferential rupture of girth weld Exponent currently considers the residual risk of future pipeline failures caused by pipe manufacturing-related risks to be negligible. The HDPE coating system is designed to mitigate external pipe corrosion. 2004 September 16. rather. 4. a sleeve is placed. This level of defect removal is not atypical. however. The three pipe material–related failures do not indicate that the manufacturing process was inadequate. 2007 were replaced and successfully passed a subsequent hydrostatic test. Table 1. It needs to be recognized that. see leaks 3. they demonstrate that the hydrostatic testing was successful in removing these defects before the pipeline was placed into operation. 2003 February 16. 2003 Failure Type Partial circumferential rupture of girth weld Longitudinal fracture Partial circumferential rupture Short longitudinal fracture along the longitudinal weld Short longitudinal fracture along the longitudinal weld Partial circumferential rupture of girth weld Failure Cause Description Incorrect assembly of weld joint during construction External mechanical deformation and gauges Localized material defect of manufactured steel plate used for pipe manufacture Localized defect along the factory manufactured longitudinal weld Localized defect along the factory manufactured longitudinal weld Failure of a repair girth weld External damage of pipe due to unauthorized use of construction equipment near pipeline Failure of a repair girth weld Pipeline NGL NGL 3 4 5 6 NGL NGL NGL NGL KP 171 KP 31+494 KP 48+830 KP 170 October 4.
In this regard. 5. Qualified Welding Procedures (QWP) for girth welds and their field repair are given in Construction Specifications 2794-L-SP-00012. 2794-L-SP-00017. a review of the welding records indicates that the issued welder certificates were consistent with the requirements of API 1104 and ASME Sec.003 A0F0 0607 0806 50 . 2007 long-term integrity and mitigated by operation of a cathodic protection system and detection of material loss by inline inspection tools. The other incident was caused by a hydrogen-induced crack in the girth weld that both escaped radiographic detection and passed hydrostatic testing. API 1104 and ASME B31. A more detailed description of the inline inspection’s results and a discussion of our observations can be found in Section 7. and 2794-L-SP-00031.8 (gas) standards establish the framework for the many girth welds that join the individual pipes. whereas for the NG pipeline. geotechnical loading conditions. This hydrogen crack does not necessarily represent an unacceptable level of risk. IX. and because the pipe material toughness exceeded the minimum required so that the crack was just below the failure threshold. It is not unusual for a small number of preexisting line defects to cause small leaks that are detectible and SF36292. Exponent reviewed these welding specifications and found them to be acceptable and in conformance with API 1104. in 2006.6 Pipeline Field Welding–Related Risks The individual pipes are circumferentially joined in the field using the Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW) and Flux Arc Welding (FCAW) method in compliance with API 1104. were the significant contributing factors in three of these four incidents. 2794-L-SP00016. automated methods were used.June 8. In addition. These standards are used throughout the world for the construction of pipelines. TgP operates a cathodic protection system and.3. The NGL pipeline was fabricated using the manual SMAW method. The crack missed detection by both of these weld quality tests because the crack appears to have developed after the weld was x-rayed. Although four of the six incidents occurred at girth welds.4 (liquid) and ASME B31. and not weld quality. performed an inline pipe inspection of the NGL pipeline to detect any external as well as internal material loss.
that a tight hydrogen crack could escape detection by the radiograph. Ewing.3. Likewise.H. Exponent reviewed a limited number of radiographs and associated reports that did not show any API 1104 code deviations. 2007 easily repaired for a line that has been hydrostatically tested. page 10.8 Hydrostatic Testing–Related Risks 5.1 Background Hydrostatic testing of pipelines is an important tool to verify integrity and identify any leaks. it was to be radiographed.June 8.003 A0F0 0607 0806 51 . 12th World Gas Conference. Hydrostatic testing involves filling each pipe section with water and pressurizing the water to a predefined proof pressure that 47 G. A review of the certification records confirmed that the contracted inspection personnel were certified to the required level. and the radiograph evaluated per API 1104 for any potential welding-induced defects. 5. A more detailed discussion of the risks associated with hydrogen-induced cracking of girth welds can be found in Section 5. there is a very small possibility. Because defects such as an undercut are more easily identified than a very tight hydrogen crack. due to the time-delayed nature of a hydrogen crack. Hydrostatic testing of the system is mandated by the ASME codes.8. as with all pipelines. The inspectors who conducted and interpreted these radiographs were to be certified to Level II per API 1104. 5. SF36292.8.7 Pipeline X-ray–Related Risks Techint specified that 24 hours after a weld was made. there is also a finite risk that a hydrogen crack could develop just after the radiograph is taken. Any defects determined not to be acceptable per API 1104 were to be removed and the weld repaired. Radiography is particularly effective in finding weld defects such as undercuts in the weld.47 It only becomes a significant risk if such cracking is pervasive throughout the system. 1973. “The Development and Results of High Stress Hydrostatic Testing of Gas Transmission Lines in the United States”.
and one by a foreign object being introduced during rolling of the steel plate. The test results are more an indication of the test’s ability to detect preexisting faults. 2007 exceeds the maximum operating pressure. the Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation has in service over 5. All of these failures were subsequently repaired. our review indicates that the hydrostatic tests were executed in conformance with the ASME Codes. However. which is the expected maximum operating pressure (MOP). such that the effectiveness to detect defects varied along the length of the pipelines.8.June 8. induced stresses were not uniform. the individual tested sections of the pipeline are welded back together using either pipe tie-in pieces or welding the adjoining pipe sections together. Table 1 lists the specific information for each leak. A similar criterion applies to the NG pipeline and is defined per ASME B31. the pipe is repaired and hydrostatic testing is performed again to verify the pipe’s water tightness and strength.000 miles of transmission pipelines that have been hydrostatically tested.8. If a leak is detected during hydrostatic testing. and the pipeline section was successfully re-tested.48 This hydrostatic test was performed for both pipelines along the entire length of the system. the water-tightness of the pipeline is verified by maintaining a slightly smaller constant water pressure for at least 4 hours. Eight failures during hydrostatic testing in more than 1. Three leaks were caused by faulty girth welds. eight leaks were identified. After the test. two by external damage that had occurred during construction. In the case of the NGL pipeline. Hydrostatic testing removed 129 defects over a span of 48 TgP’s water tightness test was conservatively extended to be 24 hours long. These welds are then radiographed 24 hours after the welding. the specific code requirements are that the hydrostatic test’s proof pressure is 1. For example. SF36292. of which seven occurred in the NGL pipeline.003 A0F0 0607 0806 52 .25 times the internal design pressure. Per this criterion. Next. especially considering the challenging terrain.250 km of pipeline is a low number.2 Hydrostatic Testing Results for the Camisea System During the hydrostatic testing of the Camisea system. 5. two by faulty longitudinal welds. during hydrostatic testing.
June 8.003 A0F0 0607 0806 53 . however.8. 10 were plate defects. In the Camisea system and consistent with general pipeline engineering practice throughout the world. 2007 3. it needs to be recognized that these risks cannot be fully eliminated but need to be managed by the pipeline operator. “The Development and Results of High Stress Hydrostatic Testing of Gas Transmission Lines in the United States. As in any pipeline. This temporarily trapped hydrogen embrittles the weld material and heat-affected zone (HAZ).49 Of these 129 defects. this hazard was mitigated during construction by radiographic inspection of all girth welds and hydrostatic testing. This situation arose with the second spill incident at KP 222+500. and the remainder were defects at the longitudinal welds. this type of potential defect.” 1973. despite the precautions taken by hydrostatic testing. and the subsequent hydrostatic test and initiated the subsequent spill incident.H. In the absence of significant external pipe loading. Ewing. SF36292.424 miles of pipe. This situation arose with the second spill incident of the NGL pipeline. in which the tough pipe material of the system did not rupture during hydrostatic testing.3 Hydrogen-Induced Crack–Related Risks Hydrogen-induced cracking (HIC) is a well-known phenomenon that affects welds in which hydrogen can be temporarily introduced during welding of mild steels. but will not leave any trace of its presence after it diffuses out of the weld. During the time the hydrogen is present. would typically release only small amounts of gas or liquid hydrocarbons. because defects may be aligned or sized such that the hydrostatic test would not rupture the pipe and the defect could go undetected. page 10. where a hydrogen-induced crack was not detected by the radiograph. the weld material and HAZ is susceptible to hydrogen-induced cracking. some minimal risk may exist. 16 were defects in the girth welds. 12th World Gas Conference. Despite these actions. Hydrostatic testing plays an important role in detecting flaws and cracks in pipelines in order to reduce operational risks and the likelihood of subsequent pipeline incidents. these cracks are formed several hours to several days after welding. 5. The multiple hydrostatic test cycles and subsequent operational pressure cycles of the transported hydrocarbons further 49 G. a potential residual risk is that partial penetration cracks can survive the hydrostatic test. if it results in a leak. Typically.
The reviewed test results showed no indication of a leak for the final hydrostatic test. which are discussed in more detail in Section 6. ultimately breaching the wall and causing a slow leak in the NGL line at KP 222+500. Overall. 2007 propagated this initial hydrogen-induced crack.9 Conclusions Construction of the pipeline used methods that employed standard engineering procedures. We currently believe that hydrogen-induced cracking is not a systemic issue. The incident at KP 222+500 is currently not considered to be indicative of any systemic problems for the more than 100.000 girth welds. The hydrostatic test of this section was performed five months after the fabrication of this joint and lasted for approximately a month. because absent soil movement. Exponent’s review and analysis currently indicates that the most likely cause for the failure of the initial hydrostatic tests was entrapped air. the review showed that (1) the pipe was specifically built for this system and consistent with API 5L requirements. a failure with a slow leak rate should be the more likely outcome. risks are not as high as for a rupture situation. the radiography of all girth welds and hydrostatic testing of the system provides a level of risk mitigation consistent with general pipeline engineering practice. The five repetitions of this hydrostatic test were necessitated by the pipe’s inability to hold pressure in the initial test. GEOTEC recognized this risk and recommended additional geotechnical stabilization measures. The occurrence of this type of failure should be very low.June 8. The severity and challenges of the dynamic terrain led to the construction of geotechnical remedial measures at more than 100 locations in 2006. but the post-failure radiograph clearly showed a hydrogen-induced crack. our inspections in 2006 showed that a significant portion of these measures were not sufficiently effective and robust to stabilize the ROW. Exponent’s investigation currently indicates that the post-weld radiograph at KP 222+500 showed no signs of a hydrogen-induced crack. and when it does occur. the constructed geotechnical stabilization measures proved to be insufficiently robust that soil stability was initially problematic along the ROW. However. (2) the issued welder certificates and qualifications of the inspectors SF36292. Overall. On the other hand. 5.003 A0F0 0607 0806 54 .
June 8. 2007 were in compliance with API 1104. SF36292.003 A0F0 0607 0806 55 . and (3) hydrostatic testing of the system was in compliance with the required ASME codes.
and heavy precipitation leading to underground seepage and numerous water crossings.003 A0F0 0607 0806 56 .1 Geotechnical and Geologic Conditions The Camisea Transportation System carries natural gas products through the jungle. The rocks and soils in the selva sector are generally characterized as materials with low durability. the conditions include very steep and high slopes. isolated areas of flatter slopes with high-plasticity weathered soils. wedge landslides. Geotechnical hazards are defined as movement in soil. Each of these geographic regions possesses distinctive terrain. The salient geotechnical and geologic hazards for the selva sector include debris flows. low strength. narrow ridges. over the Andes Mountains. high groundwater levels. typically when saturated. The conditions include very steep and high slopes.June 8. relatively thick deposits of moderate to high-plasticity residual soils. and other conditions that pose a myriad of geotechnical and geologic hazards50 and challenge the integrity and reliable operation of the pipeline. amounts of precipitation. The mountain (sierra) sector is characterized by natural conditions that are somewhat better than those in the selva sector. particularly when devoid of vegetation. all of which are a direct consequence of the steep topography and heavy precipitation. Specifically. geotechnical and geologic hazards are external ground pressures resulting from ground instability or movement. isolated regions with infrequent occurrence of high intensity rainfall. whereas geologic hazards are defined as movement in rock. The jungle (selva) sector is characterized as having geotechnical and geologic conditions that pose the highest risk to the integrity of the pipelines. and high-gradient streams. rockfalls. and moderate to high susceptibility to erosion. SF36292. but the water table can rise during periods of intense rainfall that occur 50 For purposes of this report. hard rock. 2007 6 Geotechnical and Geology-Related Risks 6. low resistance to weathering. rock slides. and ridge instability. and along the Pacific coast. but still pose significant risk to the pipelines. freezing temperatures. Groundwater typically does not exist within the pipe zone. deep rotational landslides in colluvial deposits. geology.
These recommended measures were to be used in conjunction with regular maintenance activities. slope armoring. These geotechnical and geologic conditions were known and evaluated by several geotechnical and geologic consultants. and reinforced shotcrete. and broad river crossings. particularly reconstruction of surface drainage works. with recommendations for remedial actions that included surface and subsurface drainage systems. five months after the system was placed into operation. the consortium hired to provide engineering services during and immediately after construction of the system. very little rainfall. The coastal (costa) sector generally has the most favorable natural conditions with respect to the static stability of soil and rock along the ROW. gabion walls. The costa sector is characterized by regions with low topographic relief. This report also recommended the following types of instrumentation: observation wells or piezometers. and rockfalls. metal or concrete piles. predominantly granular soils and gravel. 6. and stabilization systems such as buttress fills.003 A0F0 0607 0806 57 . and slope inclinometers. In January 2005. The principal geotechnical and geologic hazards in the sierra sector include debris flows. and lateral erosion of river terraces in the Pisco River Valley. this design approach requires the construction of effective stabilization measures. and gravity walls. The primary non-seismic geotechnical hazards are mudflows and flash floods in ravines during infrequent downpours. rock bolts. SF36292. crib walls. 2007 intermittently. wedge landslides. rockslides. and also a hydro-meteorological (rainfall and river-stage) alert network. including GEOTEC. the pipeline was designed such that external soil loading would be mitigated by stabilization measures constructed at sites deemed to pose a geotechnical or geologic hazard. For a challenging alignment such as this system.June 8. GEOTEC presented a plan of action. surface surveying.2 General Findings As described previously in Chapter 4. reinforced concrete walls.
Verastegui. The primary components of the 2006 geotechnical stabilization measures included: (1) gabion walls that were typically founded in weathered rock SF36292. TgP developed a master plan to address geotechnical and geologic recommendations. The geotechnical risk assessment requested by TgP from GEOTEC identified areas (slopes and ravine/river crossings) that required additional geotechnical stabilization. In some instances. 2007 Also described in Chapter 4 are the preliminary geologic and geotechnical investigations that were conducted by Golder and MRA for design of the system with the stated objective of determining the geologic and geotechnical feasibility of the proposed alignment. and displaced or disrupted drainage facilities. topographic surveys. More than 100 sites along the ROW were evaluated and remediated by implementing geotechnical stabilization measures using designs and construction techniques that were more robust than those used previously.June 8. For example. Exponent concluded that some of the stabilization measures implemented during. which indicated that the stabilization measures were not adequately mitigating geotechnical or geologic hazards at the time of our inspections. In addition.003 A0F0 0607 0806 58 . and routine annual geotechnical maintenance. As described in Chapter 4. These preliminary studies evaluated the geologic (and geotechnical) risk along the proposed route. we observed gabion walls that had displaced laterally with significant tilting. and Stepanek). some site-specific evaluations of geotechnical and geologic hazards were performed prior to or during construction by various consultants (Felix. Based on this study. Following our June 2006 inspections. GEOTEC made several other recommendations. including implementation of subsurface exploration. The most comprehensive study of geotechnical risks was performed by GEOTEC after installation of the pipeline was complete. identified critical zones in the selva sector. The spill incidents and the observed performance of the system as of early 2006 caused TgP to set into motion an aggressive geotechnical stabilization program that began in earnest in April 2006. we observed evidence of substantial ground movement. construction were not completely effective in mitigating external soil loads acting on the pipes. and made preliminary recommendations. These preliminary studies recommended further geologic and geotechnical studies during construction to identify additional unstable zones and recommend stabilization measures. or immediately following.
Based on our second set of site inspections. where evidence of soil movement was observed above the gabion wall installed at the toe of the landslide. we believe that the risk of future failure of the system resulting from external geotechnical forces has been substantially reduced at locations where stabilization measures were implemented in 2006. As a result of these efforts. be performed at PS #2 and that appropriate geotechnical stabilization measures be implemented as soon as possible. Further. piezometers. slope inclinometers.. strain gauges. with the exception of one site at PS #2. rain gauges. Exponent recommended the deployment of instrumentation and monitoring equipment (e. Based on our observations at PS #2. (4) subsurface drains (“filters”) consisting of perforated PVC pipe wrapped in geo-fabric and connected to solid pipe discharging into a lined drainage channel. lined ditch to a main surface collector system.g. rows of small-diameter pipe or timber “pin” piles that were placed parallel to the ROW. and (7) lined drainage channels to collect water from current breakers and ditch breaker drains. SF36292. Hence. depths. in September 2006. Exponent recommended that a detailed geotechnical investigation. Exponent concluded that the remedial geotechnical stabilization measures at most sites are sufficiently robust and appear to represent a reasonable and practical approach to reduce the risk of failure to the pipeline. and survey control) at sites with the greatest residual risk to assess surface and subsurface conditions. 2007 below the landslide plane. We understand that TgP has followed our recommendations. (6) surface “current breakers” to collect runoff water and convey it in a controlled. This instrumentation will provide earlier warnings of ground instability and additional data on ground movement locations. and a significant portion of the stabilization measures have been completed at PS #2. Exponent also noted that effective and continuous monitoring of the performance of surface and subsurface drainage systems is necessary.003 A0F0 0607 0806 59 .June 8. (3) reduction in thickness of soil overburden above the unstable ground or landslide. (2) in some limited cases. (5) subsurface “ditch breakers” to collect water flowing through trench backfill in steep terrain and route it to underground drain pipes. including soil sampling in borings and test pits. in September 2006. because high groundwater conditions have been a major factor in the initiation of slope movements. and subsequent review of documentation of individual site stabilization design approaches. we determined that these measures were being applied in a consistent and effective manner.
complex. The core of this program involves regular ROW visual inspections within the selva and sierra sectors by multi-disciplinary teams trained by COGA’s technical consultants. with a separate evaluation of the likelihood of failure versus the severity of failure. and (4) qualitative evaluation of the overall risk of failure. In our opinion. 2007 directions. (3) characterization of the severity of failure should one occur. and remediation) causes. and sensitive as a result of both natural and man-made (e. (2) evaluation of the likelihood of failure using a screening analysis and the geo-integrity parameters.003 A0F0 0607 0806 60 . In this method. Exponent also reviewed a proposed inspection program (marcha vigilante) initiated by TgP and COGA to help reduce the risk of future failure resulting from external geotechnical forces by detecting and quantifying early signs of slope instability. This method was developed to assess geotechnical and geologic risk in a project setting that is diverse. deforestation. In late 2006.June 8. development. SF36292. and this information is used to update the geotechnical risk assessment method described below. The geotechnical risk assessment method formulated by Exponent and TgP consists of the following four major steps: (1) evaluation of geo-integrity parameters. dynamic. and develops the most effective means to reduce risk and to prioritize remedial and monitoring efforts. The marcha vigilante inspection teams document relevant geotechnical conditions at each site on a weekly basis. and rates of movement will be available to permit more expeditious and reliable repairs.3.1 Risk Assessment Methodology Exponent and TgP collaboratively developed a qualitative method to assess the likelihood and severity of future failure resulting from geotechnical and geologic conditions at a given site along the ROW.3 Geotechnical Risk Assessment 6. 6. risk is assessed using traditional geotechnical failure modes.g.. this approach enhances the characterization of overall risk. providing a stronger basis to make fundamental decisions on acceptable and unacceptable levels of risk.
(c) translational landslide. Likelihood Levels consist of four numerical categories that correspond to our interpretation of the probability of occurrence of the failure mode at that site. with higher numerical levels also corresponding to greater.June 8. and safety. including geologic and geotechnical conditions that likely led to three of the first five pipeline ruptures. SF36292.003 A0F0 0607 0806 61 . These parameters were chosen based on our experience and knowledge of the conditions along the ROW. The following geotechnical failure modes are currently considered in this risk method and capture most of the observed landslides for the system: (a) deep rotational landslide. and (d) ridge instability.g. The computed Safety Ratios are then used to assign Likelihood Levels (LL) for each failure mode. Severity Levels (SL) are characterized using four rating levels. The Risk Categories are: Risk Category 1 – Low risk Risk Category 2 – Moderately low risk that is acceptable Risk Category 3 – Medium risk that should be evaluated for mitigation measures 51 The ratio between the forces resisting ground movement and the forces driving ground movement. more severe. A safety factor of 1 indicates that the forces are equal. The initial step in the likelihood evaluation involves computing a Safety Ratio (SR) for the site using geo-integrity parameters for each failure mode. property. 2007 Geo-integrity parameters are typically evaluated during the inspection program (e. health. The final step in the risk assessment method involves assigning the final Risk Category for each site by combining the computed Likelihood and Severity Levels as shown in Table 2. The Safety Ratio relationships developed for this method are intended to be an interim surrogate measure of safety factors51 in the absence of more rigorous engineering analysis. and a slope is at the point of marginal stability or imminent failure.. The Severity Level considers the following four different consequence categories: environmental. The higher the Likelihood Level. consequences. marcha vigilante) to characterize the likelihood of a potential pipeline failure using readily available or measurable information from a given site. (b) wedge landslide. the greater the susceptibility.
The final Risk Category is evaluated using the most critical combination of the Likelihood Level.003 A0F0 0607 0806 62 . and none are in the costa sector. Of the 95 sites in the risk matrix. 28 are in the sierra sector. and Severity Level as shown in Table 2. considering all four failure modes. 2007 Risk Category 4 – High risk that should be evaluated for mitigation measures with high priority Risk Category 5 – Very high risk that requires immediate evaluation of the need for mitigation measures. Exponent has recommended to TgP that all sites in Risk Categories 3. 4.3. SF36292.June 8. 52 Although more than 100 sites were mitigated as part of the 2006 geotechnical stabilization program conducted by TgP and COGA.2 Application of the Risk Assessment Method The geotechnical risk assessment method was applied to 95 different sites52 along the system to create a risk matrix. Table 2. The sites were selected by COGA based on their interpretation of the geotechnical and geologic hazards present along the ROW. the geo-integrity parameters necessary to apply the geotechnical risk assessment method were characterized for only 95 sites as of October 2006. 67 are in the selva sector. and 5 be subjected to a formal engineering stability analysis to determine whether mitigation measures are necessary. Risk category assessment chart Likelihood 1 1 2 Severity 3 4 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 4 4 2 3 4 5 6.
the maximum combination of likelihoodseverity pairings of each individual site is presented. and subsequently by Exponent for the sites that we visited. For example. sites are entered into the risk matrix if manifestations of earth instability (e. and ridge instability is included in the risk matrix.. The results of the geotechnical risk assessment and our field observations indicate that TgP made substantial progress in 2006 to diminish the overall risk of future failure resulting from external soil or rock pressures.g. there currently are no sites in the matrix involving this potential hazard. slope bulging. during our field inspections in June and September 2006. The risk at each site was then re-evaluated following the completion of the stabilization measures (September 2006). in order to provide a baseline assessment of risk. some on both occasions. tension cracks. Thirty-five of these sites were in the COGA risk matrix. and October 2006 are presented in Figures 21 to 23. soil movement. The overall risk at each site was first evaluated assuming conditions that existed prior to the construction of the new geotechnical stabilization measures (May 2006). the risk was re-evaluated to incorporate the implementation of the marcha vigilante inspection program (October 2006). The 35 sites in the risk matrix that were inspected by Exponent are shown in blue. 2007 In general. along the initial 455 km of the ROW) as having “high” to “very high” risk (Risk Categories 4 and 5) in May SF36292. the results were compiled in pie charts to summarize the overall risk level of the 95 sites in the COGA risk matrix (Figures 21 to 23). In addition. it is our understanding that TgP will transition in 2007 toward a proactive implementation to address this potential geotechnical risk. September.June 8. However. In this regard. The risk matrix initially ranked 48% of the sites (45 sites. Finally. the risk matrix does not necessarily include all potential risk sites along the entire pipeline alignment. surface depression. excessive fiber optic attenuation) are observed. Exponent inspected more than 50 sites. even though narrow ridge instability is a substantial hazard on some sections of the ROW in the selva sector. Exponent did not independently evaluate the geo-integrity parameters for the remaining 61 sites but did collaborate with COGA in their evaluation. respectively. The risk matrix is based on the geotechnical expert evaluation of the first 450 km of the ROW. pipe movement. The results of the geotechnical risk assessment for May. because there were no known manifestations of ground movement in these same sections as of 2006.003 A0F0 0607 0806 63 . For each time period. The geointegrity parameters for these 35 sites were evaluated initially by COGA.
SF36292. only one site adjacent to the second pump station was ranked as “very high. 94 Likelihood 1 1 2 3 4 0 0 3 2 0 4 17 2 0 1 13 9 0 7 24 12 Severity 2 3 4 DISTRIBUTION for MAY 2006 1 2 3 4 5 35% 23% 0% 29% 13% Figure 21. Risk assessment results for May 2006. and 74% of sites were ranked as having “moderately low” risk (Risk Category 2) by October 2006.June 8. the percentage of sites ranked “high” to “very high” risk was 13% (12 sites) in September 2006. Further reductions to the risk level were observed in the October 2006 risk matrix results wherein only 5% of the sites (5 sites) were characterized as having a “high” to “very high” risk. By comparison. By October 2006.” As mentioned before. 2007 2006. TgP has recently been implementing stabilization works at this location to reduce the geotechnical risk.003 A0F0 0607 0806 64 .
June 8. 2007 95 Likelihood 1 1 2 3 4 0 0 9 3 0 5 22 16 0 6 20 4 0 2 6 2 Severity 2 3 4 DISTRIBUTION for SEPTEMBER 2006 1 2 3 4 5 40% 47% 0% 11% 2% Figure 22.003 A0F0 0607 0806 65 . Risk assessment results for September 2006. SF36292.
2007 95 Likelihood 1 1 2 3 4 0 0 16 9 0 8 33 14 0 4 6 1 0 0 3 1 Severity 2 3 4 DISTRIBUTION for OCTOBER 2006 1 2 3 4 5 74% 21% 0% 4% 1% Figure 23. which includes the monitoring program for the September 2006 results.June 8. SF36292.003 A0F0 0607 0806 66 . Risk assessment results for October 2006.
e.e. 3 1 Reduction in Risk 2 21 9 1 21 9 1 0 27 1 3 1 2 3 4 5 May 2006 Risk Category Figure 24. The construction of geotechnical stabilization measures is reflected in the risk matrix through re-evaluation of geointegrity parameters used to characterize various site conditions (i. 2007 The substantial reduction in overall risk from May to October 2006 is directly attributable to changes in Likelihood Levels. because Severity Levels were likely unchanged. Figure 24 shows that the most significant reductions in risk were achieved at sites possessing “high” to “very high” risk (Risk Category ≥ 4). The rankings in the May and October risk matrices were compared to evaluate the total progress made as of October 2006 in mitigating geotechnical and geologic hazards along the ROW through geotechnical stabilization. inspections.June 8. whereas marginal effects were observed at “moderately low” to “medium” risk sites. Change in risk from May to October 2006.. which began in earnest in April 2006. slope inclination. The change in Likelihood Levels from May to September coincides with COGA’s progress in completing robust geotechnical stabilization measures. and presence of gabion walls). Figure 24 summarizes the computed reduction in Risk Category versus the baseline risk (i. The further reduction of Likelihood Levels in the October risk matrix corresponds to TgP’s commencement of its comprehensive inspection program. groundwater depth.003 A0F0 0607 0806 67 . SF36292. the Risk Category as of May 2006). and monitoring.. surface drainage control.
engineering judgment should be exercised at all times when applying the risk assessment method. Results of this method appear to work reasonably well in providing a qualitative assessment of the geotechnical and geologic hazards present along the ROW. In contrast. Selva (May 2006) Sierra (May 2006) 4 5 SF36292. the October 2006 results show a substantial reduction in the risk for the selva sector. Figures 25 and 26 show the risk by sectors for the May and October risk matrix rankings. 2007 The results of the risk assessment for the 95 sites were separated by sector. Hence. representation across the three sectors was not possible.003 A0F0 0607 0806 68 . comparison of Figures 25 and 26 suggests that the majority of the geotechnical stabilization works and monitoring programs are appropriately focused on the selva sector. While TgP had been using a risk assessment method for some time. 50 45 40 Frequency 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 Risk Category Figure 25. However. respectively. However. because 67 of the 95 sites are located in the selva sector—the location of the vast majority of sites that have exhibited manifestations of ground instability—and the remaining sites are in the sierra sector. whereas the majority of the sierra sector sites fall into Risk Category 2.June 8. The May 2006 rankings show that the majority of the selva sector sites evaluated fall into Risk Categories 4 and 5. recognizing the qualitative nature of the approach. to geographically delineate variations in the potential for geotechnical risk along the system. Risk by sectors for May 2006. the current geotechnical risk assessment method was developed in 2006. wherein most of the selva sites fall into Risk Categories 2 and 3.
strain gauges and inclinometers). decision processes and means of execution.June 8.4 Ongoing Geotechnical Risk Mitigation We expect that the continuous. Initially. requiring immediate measures to sufficiently mitigate the hazard. Therefore.003 A0F0 0607 0806 69 . 2007 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 Selva (October 2006) Sierra (October 2006) Frequency 4 5 Risk Category Figure 26. 6. Risk by sectors for October 2006. this approach will likely require an assessment of geologic and topographic maps to identify the most susceptible sites. In addition. Some of these potential new sites may even be ranked with a high to very high risk. Exponent recommends that TgP develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP) that governs the use of all geotechnical risk assessment methods and guide TgP’s actions. This RMP should state at least the following: SF36292.g. ongoing implementation of the risk matrix process will identify additional sites that are not included in the current risk matrix as new manifestations of ground movement are observed or detected using the installed instrumentation (e.. we recommend that TgP adopt a proactive approach of continually assessing geotechnical and geologic hazards along the ROW where manifestations of instability are not present.
and engineering experience. Exponent recommended that a detailed geotechnical investigation.June 8. we observed evidence that some geotechnical stabilization measures implemented during or immediately following construction proved insufficient to mitigate external soil pressures acting on the pipes.5 Conclusions The geotechnical and geologic conditions along the pipe alignment are diverse. Based on Exponent’s review. we conclude that geotechnical and geologic conditions posed the most significant risk to the integrity and reliable operation of the system. Clear organizational structures and the level of responsibility and authority need to be assigned. dynamic. • Mandated actions ranging from authorizing investigations to shutting down the pipeline need to be provided. 6. and concluded that the geotechnical risk has been reduced substantially at the remediated sites. complex. be performed at PS #2 as soon as possible. and TgP has communicated that such efforts have been substantially completed.003 A0F0 0607 0806 70 . During our inspections in 2006. including soil sampling in borings and test pits. Exponent recommended the deployment of instrumentation and monitoring equipment at critical SF36292. wherein three of the spill incidents were attributed to geotechnical and geologic instabilities. caused TgP to implement aggressive geotechnical stabilization measures. 2007 • • • All sites with a risk ranking 4 and 5 should be mitigated immediately. Extraordinary efforts were made to complete the geotechnical stabilization measures along the ROW before the start of the 2006–2007 rainy season. and sensitive. All sites with a likelihood ranking of 4 should be mitigated immediately. This remedial program began in earnest in April 2006 and employed robust construction techniques that were applied in a consistent and effective manner. Furthermore. The observed performance of the pipeline system. observations. with the exception of a site adjacent to the second pump station. when stabilization measures were completed or significantly underway. Exponent visited more than 50 sites during our September 2006 inspection.
June 8, 2007
sites to provide earlier warnings of ground instability, and to provide additional data on ground movement locations, depths, directions, and rates to permit more expeditious and reliable repairs. Exponent also reviewed the inspection program initiated by TgP to help reduce the risk of future failure from external geotechnical forces by detecting and quantifying early signs of slope instability. This program, which involves weekly visual inspections of critical sections of the system during the rainy season, appears to be comprehensive and aggressive. During the second phase of our project, Exponent worked collaboratively with TgP to develop a geotechnical risk assessment method to evaluate the occurrence of geotechnical hazards along the ROW that could ultimately affect the stability of the system. This risk assessment method was validated using information from our field inspections and applied to 95 sites along the system to create a risk matrix. The risk at each site was evaluated at three different points in time, reflecting the risk prior to construction of the new geotechnical remedial measures (May 2006), after the construction of those measures (September 2006), and after implementation of the additional monitoring programs (October 2006). In general, the results of the geotechnical risk assessment are consistent with our field observations that TgP has made substantial progress in diminishing the overall risk. The reduction in risk in 2006 was achieved primarily through the construction of geotechnical stabilization measures and implementation of monitoring programs to decrease the likelihood of future failures. Furthermore, the results suggest that the geotechnical stabilization measures and monitoring programs have appropriately targeted sites that formerly had high to very high risk, which are located primarily in the selva sector. We expect that the continuous, ongoing implementation of the risk matrix process will identify additional sites that are not included in the current risk matrix as new manifestations of ground movement are observed or detected using the installed instrumentation (e.g., strain gauges and inclinometers). Some of these sites may even be ranked with a high to very high risk and will need to be mitigated quickly. Therefore, we recommended that TgP adopt a proactive approach of continually assessing geotechnical hazards along the ROW, such that sites possessing higher risk profiles that have not exhibited instability manifestations will be included in the risk matrix. In
SF36292.003 A0F0 0607 0806
June 8, 2007
this regard, TgP has committed to implementing a RMP, recommended by Exponent, that will govern the use of all risk assessment methods and guide TgP’s actions, decision process, and manner of execution. At this time, Exponent believes that a successful implementation of the above, and the construction of additional geotechnical mitigation measures in 2007, will further reduce the geotechnical-related risks to the pipeline system.
SF36292.003 A0F0 0607 0806
June 8, 2007
Pipeline Integrity–Related Risks
Description of Potential Risks and Controls
In any operating pipeline, pipe integrity–related risks are associated with pipe loading conditions, pipe material, weld quality, and the quality of protection the pipeline is afforded against environmental conditions. Pipe material and pipe manufacture–related risks have been discussed in prior sections and been deemed to be at a typical and acceptable level for pipelines. Risk mitigation during the construction of the pipeline relied foremost on hydrostatic testing and radiography of girth welds, which is in compliance with the requirements of the applicable codes. During operation, inline inspections and external pipe inspections are the most effective means of controlling long-term hazards to pipeline integrity, most commonly manifested as internal and external corrosion. As with the Camisea system, cathodic protection and the exterior HDPE coating are common methods of protecting the pipeline from external environmental attack. Inline inspection tools, particularly the Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) tool, in conjunction with pipe excavation at areas identified as problematic, are common means of identifying internal metal loss and other potential anomalies. These inspections are typically conducted in compliance with API 1160 and federal regulations by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 49 CFR 195.452. In this regard, TgP has implemented an inline inspection program in compliance with these requirements. This section summarizes the results of these pipe inspections performed by TgP in 2006 on the NGL pipeline and discusses the key findings and future needs to mitigate potential residual risks. In the dynamic landscape of the Camisea selva sector, soil movement has been identified to be the most significant hazard to the system, because soil movement imposes a lateral loading upon the pipe. Lateral loading from external soil pressures can induce axial stresses in the pipe, in addition to the stresses induced by the internal pressure of the transported hydrocarbons. These axial stresses affect the girth welds in the pipe, by growing circumferential defects if they exist,
SF36292.003 A0F0 0607 0806
Identification of these sites and construction of effective geotechnical measures mitigates this risk most effectively. SF36292. an increased residual risk due to subcritical crack propagation may exist at sites where geotechnical mitigation measures have not been constructed. Load capacity estimates for the NGL pipeline show that. axial loading due to internal pressure alone cannot account for the observed fast54 crack growth rates and final overload failure. 2007 and this could also significantly affect the integrity of a pipeline. for the first and fifth spill incidents. Significant progressive lateral soil loading is the likely force that propagated these cracks and induced the 53 54 The sixth spill incident is currently being investigated and is not included in this comparison.June 8.2 Pipe Material and Damage Tolerance–Related Risks The tubular pipe material used for the system was required to conform to API 5L. We refer to fast crack growth in the context of geologic time scales and not dynamic fast fracture due to impact loading. This basic residual strength advantage of the NG pipeline versus the NGL pipeline is approximately a factor of two in tension and a factor of six in bending. Thus. These tests independently substantiated the adequacy of pipe strength. Exponent’s analysis of the system’s ability to withstand lateral soil movement has shown that the as-designed NG pipeline has a significantly larger external load capacity and flaw tolerance than the NGL pipeline. because the NGL pipeline only requires a smaller diameter and thus thinner walls than the NG pipeline per the hydraulic design considerations of the ASME codes. Therefore. The results of Exponent’s analysis are consistent with the operational experience. the pipeline is less able to resist external soil loads. these external soil loads should be mitigated by geotechnical stabilization measures. tested samples of pipe from the first five spill incidents. Elimination of potential defects in the pipe or weld reduces the potential risk even further. This standard requires minimum yield strength of 70. where soil movement was identified to be a significant contributor in three of the five spill incidents. TgP’s outside consultant.53 In particular.000 psi for an X70 grade pipe. MCI.003 A0F0 0607 0806 74 . while sufficient for internal pressures. 7. In addition to the material testing required by API 5L during pipe manufacturing. such that the NG pipeline generally has a low risk of failure from external loads.000 psi and a minimum ultimate strength of 82.
003 A0F0 0607 0806 75 . to determine the remaining strength of corroded pipes. and dents. Furthermore. However. However. ANSI B31G is a manual that is used and referenced in DOT 49 CFR 195. pipe gauge. Under normal operating pressures. geologic hazards pose a risk to the NGL pipeline.452. using the MFL inspection tool and a geometric inline inspection tool. any potential defects that may have survived the hydrostatic test are unlikely to cause rupture. DOT regulates inspections per 49 CFR 195.3 7. metal loss. since the NG pipeline has a larger diameter such that smaller stresses are induced by the same soil load. The MFL inspection tool has the capability to detect metal loss and other potential pipe wall anomalies. especially if circumferential cracks are deeper than 40% of the wall thickness.June 8. Our analysis indicates that this crack was at the limit of detection for the hydrostatic test performed at this location. SF36292.1 Inline Pipe Inspection Background TgP contracted Tuboscope Pipeline Services (TPS) in 2006 to perform an inline inspection of the entire NGL pipeline. this soil loading is mostly load controlled and therefore is more detrimental to the NGL pipeline than the NG pipeline.452. The goal of the pipe inspections is to identify pipe wall anomalies. These tools are inserted at a launch point at each pump station and record data from their sensors for later analysis. repeated hydrostatic testing will not reduce this risk. The geometric tool continuously measures the pipe’s geometry along its length. because the pipe material is sufficiently tough to pass the hydrostatic test. providing guidance to the pipeline industry in maintaining the integrity of pipelines that transport hazardous liquids. 7. API 1160 is a standard that is used to implement these rules. Our review indicates that this set of 55 The hydrogen-induced crack that imitated the second spill incident was significantly deeper but relatively short. 2007 overload failure of the NGL pipeline.55 because soil movement can induce the growth of such cracks.3. potentially leading to pipe failure. This failure evolution occurred with very few load cycles until the crack reached critical length. which lays out the classification and reporting of these conditions.
Beyond what is required by applicable norms (i. a series of detailed non-destructive testing (i. potential anomalies). Our discussion of the results of the inline inspection is divided into two parts. ultrasound wall thickness measurement. 12 sites have been investigated and necessary repair actions completed. By the end of March.. etc. external ultrasound inspection of girth weld. 2007 regulations and standards are being used by TgP to conduct their pipeline integrity review of the recently performed inline pipe inspection.e.g. external magnetic particle inspection of girth weld. 2 to girth welds and 1 to dent and metal loss.g. As of March 2007. 13 to dents.. re-weld. First. we discuss the results of the inline inspection with regard to the requirements of 49 CFR 195. as well as external excavations.2 Inline Pipe Inspection Results TgP used the combined data from the MFL inspection and geometric inspection. and the more sophisticated MFL inspection tool is used to identify other reportable wall thinning conditions encountered in the pipeline industry.003 A0F0 0607 0806 76 . patching.).452. in terms of required follow-up action/investigation). the geometric inspection tool is typically used to identify dents. micro hardness measurement). and it was not necessary to replace the pipe or repair a girth weld. TGP is also investigating additional locations where the internal inspection tool reported some indications (e.. which includes excavation.June 8. In this regard. the existing pipe was in sufficient condition to reinforce. numerous sites have SF36292. visual inspection. The inline inspection results of the entire NGL pipeline (48. In all cases.3. Good correlation was found between the inline inspection results and the field verifications. The approach for each of these sites is to do a field investigation at each site. implementation of any necessary remedial actions (e. and based on the results. measure of pipe diameter and axial pipe misalignment. 14 were related to metal loss. radiographic examination of girth weld. Among the 30 locations. Then we discuss the MFL inspection tool’s ability to detect potential circumferential cracks and its impact on the NGL pipeline’s risk..e. 7. The investigation of the remaining 18 anomalies is ongoing.452.188 pipes) only identified 30 locations with reportable conditions per the requirement. to determine which conditions were reportable per DOT 49 CFR 195.
and we recommend that this should be evaluated as part of TgP’s ongoing pipeline integrity program. the burst pressure of the pipeline is at all times larger than the maximum operating pressure). per DOT 49 CFR 195. and nearly 80% of the detected damage is less than 10% deep. For cracks with a smaller opening. The deepest metal loss was reported to have occurred in the selva sector. TgP and its contractors conducted a research program to quantify the crack detection limit of the MFL tool. with a depth of 49%. Exponent performed a pipeline integrity study to determine the MFL inspection tool’s utility in detecting circumferential cracks. SF36292.452. TgP requested that TPS use a more stringent criterion of identifying any diametrical change larger than 2%. Overall.3 Circumferential Crack Detection In an effort to quantify the MFL tool’s ability to detect circumferential cracks.e. currently. A verification of other sites is ongoing.. 2007 been verified in the field without having encountered any significant defect.56 Our analysis indicates that a potential circumferential crack would need to be subjected to a significant external load to be detectable 56 The service provider of the currently used MFL inspection tool has determined that only circumferential cracks with a crack mouth opening of more than 0. Specifically. this portion of the NGL pipeline may be subject to this potential risk over the long term. no severe external and internal corrosion damage exists along the NGL pipeline (i. However. it also appears that there is a relatively elevated frequency of metal loss occurrences within the first 50 km of the NGL pipeline. the data showed that the vast majority of metal loss occurrences had depths of less than 15% with respect to the pipe’s wall thickness. results of the MFL inspection tool and evaluation of metal loss per ASME B31G has shown that. which is still less than the mitigation threshold of 80% as required per DOT 49 CFR 195. Based on these findings. Therefore. Specifically.1 mm can be detected with a probability of better than 90%.3. 7. In addition.003 A0F0 0607 0806 77 . This inspection identified a total of 90 locations along the first 452 km of inspected NGL pipeline with deviations.June 8. All other metal loss reported in the selva sector is less than 25% deep. TgP employed the geometric inspection tool to identify dents with a depth of more than 2%.452. more than 95% of these were deviations in diameter of less than 6%. the probability of detection decreases rapidly.
Our fracture mechanics study showed that the flaw tolerance of the NG pipeline is significantly better than that of the NGL pipeline. the loading condition that commonly results from external soil loads. because the NGL pipeline only requires a smaller diameter and thus thinner wall than the NG pipeline. Specifically. even though the technology appears to be readily available. the most effective means at this time to contain this potential risk is to identify sites with geologic and geotechnical instability and construct the geotechnical mitigation measures needed to eliminate any potential external soil loadings that could cause these circumferential cracks to grow. 7.June 8. Therefore.4 Conclusions The NG pipeline is at least twice as strong as the NGL pipeline under a variety of loading conditions. the NG pipeline with a nearly 60% deep circumferential crack will typically have a residual strength that will surpass that of a perfectly good NGL pipeline. Despite the fact that the use of inline inspection tools to detect small circumferential cracks is currently not a common practice among pipeline operators due to the relatively low risk to pipeline integrity posed by circumferential cracks under normal operating loads. In this regard. Clearly. 2007 with a high degree of certainty using the currently employed MFL inspection tool. TgP has committed to evaluating potential options. per the hydraulic design considerations of the ASME code. only a 40% deep circumferential crack will typically have a residual strength greater than the NGL pipeline with no flaws. Exponent expects that the most commonly encountered geologic and geotechnical hazards will induce bending moments that may be accompanied by tension loading. but it was caused by a specific site condition. Under bending loads that are typically induced by external soil loads. the third failure where tension loads were larger was an exception to this loading assumption. in pure axial loading. whereas. the NG pipeline’s strength advantage is even larger. based on this study. This is especially true if the pipe is loaded in bending. at present.003 A0F0 0607 0806 78 . the NG pipeline is deemed to be of SF36292. in bending. no pipeline inspection company is able to provide a commercially viable inspection tool that can detect potential circumferential cracks. Unfortunately. TgP has also committed resources in 2007 to further assess the ability to detect potential circumferential cracks.
June 8, 2007
significantly lower risk than the NGL pipeline. Geological and geotechnical hazards are the most significant hazards for the NGL pipeline, and are even more of a concern when circumferential cracks deeper than 40% preexist. Specific data from the fifth failure suggest that rapid crack growth due to soil movement is possible, and only a few cycles were required to propagate the crack to a critical length. TgP used the combined data from the MFL inspection and geometric inspection, as well as external excavations, to determine which conditions were reportable per DOT 49 CFR 195.452. This review only identified 30 reportable locations in the entire NGL pipeline per this requirement. These 30 locations are being investigated and repaired as needed. Overall, results of the MFL inspection tool and evaluation of metal loss per ASME B31G has shown that, currently, no severe external and internal corrosion damage exists along the NGL pipeline. However, it appears that there is a relatively elevated frequency of metal loss occurrences within the first 50 km of the NGL pipeline. Therefore, this portion of the NGL pipeline may be subject to this potential risk over the long term, and we recommend that this be evaluated as part of TgP’s ongoing pipeline integrity program. The in-line inspections and external excavations performed at many sites have shown that the MFL inspection tool is an excellent tool to detect internal and external metal loss in this system. However, its ability to identify circumferential cracks is dependent on external loading conditions, which reduces the probability of detecting potential circumferential cracks within an actionable time frame. In addition, hydrostatic testing will also not likely identify potential circumferential cracks, because identifiable critical crack sizes need to be at least 60% deep and very long, given that the pipe material has such good toughness properties. We understand that TgP has committed specific resources in 2007 to further assess the ability to detect potential circumferential cracks. A root-cause analysis of the first and fifth spill incidents and the origin and nucleation of the potential circumferential cracks, to be performed by TgP in 2007, will assist in assessing the implications of this concern related to pipeline integrity. Overall, in 2006, TgP significantly reduced pipe integrity–related risks and is currently engaged in additional efforts to further reduce the risk profile.
SF36292.003 A0F0 0607 0806
June 8, 2007
Peru represents one of the most seismically active regions in the world. This distinction is the consequence of its location along a segment of the circum-Pacific seismic belt where the continental block of South America is drifting westward, overriding and forcing down the denser Pacific Ocean (Nazca) plate along a major offshore fault zone known as a subduction zone. This deformation of the earth’s crust causes elastic strain energy57 to accumulate until a breaking point is reached—an earthquake. At least nine large-magnitude earthquakes58 have been recorded in or near Peru during the last 60 years. The intensity of ground shaking and significant effects of a particular earthquake depend largely on the magnitude, faulting mechanism, distance to the origin of rupture, and local site and subsoil conditions. The Nazca and South American plates are “slipping” at a rate of 78 to 84 mm per year.59 By comparison, the famous San Andreas fault between the Pacific and North American plates is slipping at a rate of approximately 50 mm per year. Because of the position and orientation of the subduction zone, earthquakes in Peru generally occur at increasingly greater depths toward the east, as illustrated in Figure 27. Earthquakes affecting Peru have three distinct mechanisms:60 • Shallow, offshore inter-slab thrust events wherein failure occurs at the boundary of the subducting Nazca and overriding South American plates.
Elastic strain energy is potential energy stored in a volume of the earth’s crust that has been deformed but not yet ruptured. A large-magnitude earthquake is defined as having a magnitude of 7 or greater. DeMets, C., Gordon, R.G., Stein, S. and Argus, D.F. (1990). “Current plate motions,” Geophysical Journal International, 101, pp. 425-478. Yeats, R.S., Sieh, K. and Allen, C.R. (1997). “The Geology of Earthquakes,” Oxford University Press, New York.
SF36292.003 A0F0 0607 0806
June 8, 2007
Shallow continental in-slab events where some of the relative motion of the Nazca and South American plates is accompanied by deformation within the overriding South American plate.
Finally, deep onshore in-slab events caused by internal deformation of the subducting Nazca slab at depths of 40 to 700 km.
As shown in Figure 28, the Peru-Chile segment of the circum-Pacific-seismic belt has experienced two great61 earthquake events in historical time. Recent notable earthquakes (e.g., the 2001 southern Peru event) have significantly reduced the elastic strain energy along a 300-km-long segment of the circum-Pacific seismic belt. However, the approximately 700-kmlong plate interface between Chala and Limahas has been quiescent since the great earthquakes of 1868 and 1877, and thus has been accumulating elastic strain energy since the late 19th century.62 Consequently, elastic strain energy with the potential to produce large-magnitude earthquakes in the upcoming decades exists along the part of the plate boundary closest to the Camisea ROW.
Cross-sectional view of the Peru-Chile Trench (after Worthey, Washington State University website).
A “great” earthquake has an approximate Richter magnitude of at least 8.0. Dewey, Silva, and Tavera (2003). “Seismicity and Tectonics” in Southern Peru Earthquake 23 June 2001 Reconnaissance Report, EERI Supplement A to Volume 19.
SF36292.003 A0F0 0607 0806
2007 Figure 28. in turn.003 A0F0 0607 0806 82 .June 8. lead to pipeline damage. Permanent ground deformation: Strong ground shaking during earthquakes can induce permanent ground deformations (PGD) in regions where underlying soil materials or bedrock are susceptible to ground failure mechanisms. West coast of Peru showing source regions of great events of 1868 and 1877 and epicenters of notable 20th century earthquakes (after Dewey. Excessive movement associated with ground failure can. and this mechanism is considered an indirect consequence of earthquake ground shaking. Silva. 8. SF36292. and Tavera 2003).2 Seismic Hazards to Buried Pipelines Incidents of seismically induced pipeline damage are typically characterized as arising from one of two earthquake effects: 1.
for similar levels of earthquake motion. it follows that wave propagation tends to affect weaker pipeline components.69 Wave propagation typically induces smaller strains in the pipe than PGD but covers a much longer extent of the pipeline. “Seismic damage to segmented buried pipe. or poorly compacted fills). Recent studies have shown that pipes are typically more susceptible to wave propagation damage when subjected to surface waves. Therefore.. Reston.e.e. Rayleigh or Love). 2. “An overview of geotechnical and lifeline earthquake engineering. This phenomenon generally occurs in loose. cohesionless soils subjected to rapid loadings (i.g. Earthquakes generate different types of seismic waves. toward an open face such as a stream channel. Surface faulting is the rupture and displacement of the ground where the earthquake fault intersects the ground surface. 1167-1183.65 landslides. 75. PGDinduced damage is typically confined to a local geographic area susceptible to ground failure (e. 20(4). SF36292. which cause the development of excess pore-water pressures.68 and seismic compression.g. 1392-1426. damage to buried pipelines may result. liquefiable soils.70 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Transient strain is short-term deformation. Lateral movement of ground. Wave propagation–induced damage can be thought of as a direct consequence of earthquake ground shaking. ground shaking) induce transient strains63 in buried pipelines and the surrounding soil. Wave propagation: Seismic waves traveling through the earth (i. faults. The mechanism of lateral spread requires the occurrence of soil liquefaction.” Earthquake Spectra. resulting in breaks throughout the entire portion or large portions of the pipeline system within the PGD zone.64 However.66 slope instability liquefaction.. When these transient strains become sufficiently large. 2007 2. VA. Vol. O’Rourke (1998).67 lateral spread.e. Ground failure mechanisms capable of inducing PGD damage to pipelines include surface faulting. compression or shear) or surface waves (e. Seismic compression refers to the settlement of unsaturated soils due to strong earthquake shaking. EERI. Liquefaction refers to a phenomenon wherein saturated soils temporarily lose their strength and behave like a viscous fluid. earthquakes).” ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. unstable slopes. Landsliding occurs during earthquakes when inertial forces introduced during strong shaking cause shear stresses to exceed the shear strength of the slope materials. Vol.. Wave propagation damage can occur due to the propagation of body waves (i. O’Rourke and Deyoe (2004).003 A0F0 0607 0806 83 . Studies of the performance of pipelines during past earthquakes clearly indicate that the most serious pipeline damage during earthquakes is caused by PGD.June 8. typically with little to no perceptible slope... as opposed to body waves.
Specifically. They also identified the potential for continental seismic activity occurring along the Razuwilcas fault system near Ayacucho in the sierra sector. For a subduction-zone earthquake.0g.1 Characterization of Seismic Demand Vector Peru S. 0. Exponent reviewed the Vector study and concluded that engineering models used to evaluate the seismic demand may under-predict the actual ground-shaking hazard.A. Therefore. Vector evaluated the earthquake loading for two different scenario earthquake events: (i) an “extreme” event based on a deterministic assessment corresponding to the greatest earthquake that a seismogenic zone can produce under well-defined tectonic conditions. which is 1.003 A0F0 0607 0806 84 . and is typically expressed in acceleration and/or velocity. Consequently. (2001). Ground acceleration is measured as a percent of the acceleration of gravity. “Estudio de Peligro Sismico Traza de los Ductors de Gas Y Condensados Proyecto Camisea. inter-slab versus in-slab events). 2007 8. there are substantial differences in the ground motion characteristics between the various faulting mechanisms (i.3.e. 71 72 73 Vector Peru S. and pressure reducing stations. Vector concluded that the costa sector would experience the strongest shaking. and costa) and provided more specific evaluations of ground motions for the pump stations..June 8. pressure control stations. These findings may have important implications as to which earthquake scenarios may affect the hazard along various segments of the Camisea ROW.C.” Seismic demand is the earthquake loading imposed on the system as a result of strong ground shaking. (Vector)71 characterized the regional seismic demand72 for each of the three sectors (selva.5g for the design event.C.A. sierra. with estimated peak ground accelerations of 0. Several studies have significantly advanced the scientific understanding of ground motions generated by subductionzone earthquakes. and (ii) a “design” event based on a probabilistic assessment assuming an event with a 475-year recurrence interval.3 Seismic Risk Evaluation 8. additional studies may be warranted to re-evaluate the seismic demand.7g73 for the extreme event and 0.5g represents half the acceleration of gravity. SF36292.
Peru. and silts with high fines and clay content.. Seismically induced slope instability poses a 74 ABS Consulting (2002). and seismic compression) should be evaluated on a site-specific basis outside limited areas that have been improved with geotechnical stabilization measures.003 A0F0 0607 0806 85 . For the sierra and selva sectors.52 m. ABSC postulated that soil deposits are less susceptible to liquefaction.e. They also concluded that large sections of the costa sector are covered by windblown deposits (e. particularly for slopes in the selva and sierra sectors that are marginally stable under non-seismic conditions.e. we conclude that PGD hazards arising from fault rupture pose a low risk to the pipeline.. ABSC also reviewed aerial photographs to identify regions susceptible to liquefaction.g.June 8.” SF36292. and mountainous areas exhibiting recent or ancient deep-seated landslides. with expected mean horizontal displacements of 0. and evaluating the pipeline’s capacity for such displacements. which could mask any evidence of past liquefaction episodes. landsliding. Empirical correlations were used to develop design displacements for the fault. The Los Libertadores fault was characterized as a predominately left-lateral strike-slip fault.3.2 Permanent Ground Deformation (PGD) Hazards ABS Consulting74 (ABSC) was retained by Techint to investigate surface fault rupture hazards posed by active faults along the system. lateral spread. referred to as the Los Libertadores fault. ABSC identified only one active fault crossing. However. slope instability. characterizing potential fault displacements. sands. Based on our review of documents provided to Exponent. liquefaction. “Seismic hazard investigations of active faults for the Camisea Pipeline. it appears that other modes of PGD (i. 2007 8. rapid uplift and erosion) creates poorly sorted gravels. because the depositional environment in the Andes (i. Based on our understanding of the regional geology and descriptions of ground failures during the 2001 Southern Peru Earthquake. seismically induced landslides pose a substantial risk to the pipeline.. Their investigation consisted of identifying active faults that cross the pipelines. and did not observe surface evidence of any past liquefaction episodes. sand dunes). APA Consulting was subsequently subcontracted by ABSC to evaluate the pipe performance for such fault displacements and concluded that both the NG and NGL pipes are expected to withstand the design displacements at the Los Libertadores fault. at the intended alignment.
Based on the results of the seismic stress analysis using earthquake loadings per Vector’s recommendations. a numerical pipe stress analysis software program. sections of the pipeline near river deposits and in low coastal regions may be susceptible to liquefaction and lateral spread.3 Wave Propagation Hazards ABSC75 evaluated the potential for wave propagation damage to occur along the system. the directional dependency of the seismic loading should be investigated in more detail. we conclude that straight sections of buried pipe are unlikely to be damaged by seismic wave passage during a major earthquake. and concluded that both the NG and NGL pipes can adequately resist the passage of seismic waves during the design earthquake. or with major curves or bends. ABSC evaluated the strain levels associated with these ground motions using conservative soil properties. Each pipeline model encompassed the respective surface facility and several hundred meters of buried pipeline upstream and downstream of the facility. However.” SF36292.003 A0F0 0607 0806 86 . They performed the analysis for a straight section of buried pipe using the earthquake loadings for the 475-year return period design event developed by Vector. 2007 substantial risk in the costa sector. Furthermore. an analysis should be performed to evaluate the performance of above-ground pipe sections with rigid 75 ABS Consulting (2002). However. Techint found that the surface facilities were code compliant per ASME B31. Techint evaluated the effects of ground shaking on 12 surface facilities using CAESAR II. Consequently. and hence does not capture the wave-propagation effect. Based on Exponent’s review of wave propagation studies. The seismic stress analysis performed by Techint assumed that all supports move in unison with the defined ground motion.3. “Seismic Verification of Camisea Pipelines. may be vulnerable to wave propagation damage.June 8. 8.4. segments of above-ground pipe with rigid connections to surface facilities.
the effects of wave propagation on the pipeline at rigid connections and major curves and bends should be evaluated further. Additionally. our review suggests that the potential for permanent ground displacements should be evaluated more comprehensively at the most susceptible sites to reduce the uncertainty in the risk. Although seismic hazard studies were performed as part of the system design. 2007 connections. strong ground shaking generated by large earthquakes poses a substantial risk of damaging the pipeline and disrupting operations. to determine whether these potential seismic risks are acceptable for this system or whether mitigation measures should be considered. Consequently. seismic risk management would benefit from an update of the design ground motions with up-to-date scientific information.June 8. Exponent currently understands that TgP is engaged in a review of seismic risks. 8.4 Conclusions The Camisea system lies within regions that are prone to very large and frequent earthquakes. 76 Impedance contrast provides a measure of the stiffness of one material relative to another. SF36292. The seismic hazards arising from fault rupture and wave propagation along straight sections of the buried pipeline are considered to pose a low risk to the pipeline. However. as part of their pipeline integrity management plan. which are most susceptible to wave propagation damage due to the high impedance76 contrast.003 A0F0 0607 0806 87 .
pipelines can fail or be damaged due to debris impact or from the spanned weight of the pipe. Long-term scour refers to aggradation and degradation of the streambed due to natural or anthropogenic causes. characteristics of the flood. and (3) local scour. location of the pipe crossing. it can potentially become a source of further erosion as water accelerates around the pipe. Erosion of the streambed is considered to have three principal components: (1) long-term scour. and ephemeral (flowing only after rainfall) can become exposed or undermined as a result of scour. naturally occurring lateral migration of the mainstream channel within its flood plain may affect the stability of buried crossings. and characteristics of the bed and bank materials. intermittent (flowing reaches interspersed with dry reaches). Once exposed or undermined. To prevent breakage and subsequent accidental contamination of runoff during the lifetime of the pipeline. Pipelines buried in streams that are perennial (year-round). 2007 9 Scour-Related Risks 9.003 A0F0 0607 0806 88 . SF36292.1 River Crossings and Scour Scour is defined as the erosion of streambed or bank material due to flowing water.June 8. (2) general scour. Factors that affect lateral stream migration are the geomorphology of the stream. all stream crossings should have burial depths designed and constructed according to site-specific conditions. Local scour is the removal of material due to acceleration of flow around submerged obstructions. In addition to the types of scour mentioned above. Once a pipeline is exposed or undermined. Lateral migration of a streambed can occur gradually over decadal time periods or episodically during very large flood events. General scour is the lowering of a streambed due to the passing of a flood.
“Estudio Hidrologico General Gasoducto Camisea. HEC-20 provides guidance on the evaluation of the long-term stability and geomorphology of the stream. “Cruce De Ríos Sectores Selva y Sierra Poliducto de Gas y Condensados Proyecto Camisea. 81 77 Hydroconsult (2003). 78 This hydrologic information was used by Golder to aid in their calculations of the burial depth of the NG and NGL pipeline at each river crossing. FHWA HEC-18. do not constitute design standards required by Peruvian law.” 80 Golder Associates (2002). 18 (FHWA HEC-18).2 Risks at Buried River Crossings A rigorous and robust scour analysis of buried river crossings is outlined in Figure 29. This methodology outlined in FHWA HEC-18. “Cruce De Ríos Sectores Costa. Furthermore.77.” SF36292. which provides guidance on the hydrologic and hydraulic aspects of a scour analysis. 79 Golder Associates (2002). Although these documents were developed in the United States to estimate bridge scour depths. aspects of the FHWA approach were utilized in the original design of the Camisea system. “Camisea Project Peru Rio Pisco Preliminary Report on Instream Allignments at Prog 477. 2007 9. which is taken from the Federal Highway Administration Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. Techint then used Golder’s studies and design recommendations to construct each river crossing.” 81 Golder Associates (2003). Exponent’s review indicates that specialist firms were retained to support the general contractor. Sierra Y Selva Poliducto De Gas y Condensados Proyecto Camisea. Techint.3 and 479.” 78 GMI S.” – date unknown. the FHWA documents are guidance documents and. Exponent reviewed documentation and interviewed the parties involved in the design of the 62 identified river crossings along the ROW. is symbiotic with FHWA HEC-20 and -23. and HEC-23 provides guidance on the design and construction of scour countermeasures. and -23 considers the factors likely to play a role in the scour behavior during the lifetime of a pipeline.A. they are widely used for various types of scour studies internationally. -20. to our knowledge.003 A0F0 0607 0806 89 . Techint retained Hydroconsult and GMI Consulting Engineers to complete hydrology and hydraulic studies on separate areas of the pipeline ROW. 80. However. “Cruce De Ríos Sector Costa Poliducto de Gas y Condensados Proyecto Camisea. Ingenieros Consultores.June 8.79. in determining the pipelines’ design burial depth at each river crossing.
As seen in Figure 30.5% chance of occurrence SF36292. The design return period was 200 years (0. 2007 Figure 29. the design team incorporated the following elements of the FHWA methodology in their recommended burial depth.003 A0F0 0607 0806 90 .June 8. including: • Hydroconsult and GMI Consulting Engineers completed hydrology and hydraulic studies for the river crossings. The main objective of these studies was to quantify the magnitude of the floods in the rivers crossed by the pipeline. Exponent’s review of the scour studies indicates that a portion of the guidance in the FHWA publications was used by Techint to establish the design burial depth. Flow chart for conducting scour analysis (from FHWA HEC-18).
it was increased to 2 meters at each crossing. it was increased to 1 meter.4) was deemed the most conservative and was used for many of the crossings. and site-specific conditions were documented during field investigations. were designed and built in selected locations. stabilization of embankment with gabion walls. SF36292. • Data from 19 rain gauges and 5 stream gauges were relied upon for the GMI hydrologic study. • At each river crossing. providing a certain amount of protection against abrasion and impact from small boulders. • If the calculated scour depth for rock material was less than 1 meter. The details of the other evaluated methodologies were not given in the Scour Analysis Summary Reports published by Golder in 2002 and 2003. 2007 during any year) for most crossings and was 500 years (0. Different methodologies for calculating the potential scour depth were evaluated. • Data from the hydrology and hydraulic study and the field investigations were used to calculate the potential scour depth at each river crossing. and energy dissipators. Army Corps of Engineers’ HEC-4 model.June 8.S. the system is reinforced with a concrete cover. a stochastic stream flow generation program. • The river crossing locations were surveyed.003 A0F0 0607 0806 91 . the data were incomplete or had been recorded only for short periods of time. This provides an additional safety factor above the adopted equations. • Scour countermeasures.2% chance of occurrence during any year) for crossings deemed critical. but in some cases. The clear-water contraction scour equation (FHWA HEC-18 equation 5. Incomplete or short records were supplemented using the U. If the calculated scour depth for unconsolidated alluvium was less than 2 meters. such as reinforcement of the riverbed.
June 8. Methodology utilized by Golder Associates for the scour analysis of the Camisea Pipeline (taken from “EVALUACIÓN DE CRUCES Y QUEBRADAS PROYECTO CAMISEA ‘RIVER CROSSING’” – presentation by Golder Associates January 24 and 25. All of the above-listed factors. These include: • • • • Stream classification and evaluation of long-term stream stability Evaluation of stream bank migration Identification of possible headcutting or knickpoint migration Evaluation of the potential effects of debris flows.003 A0F0 0607 0806 92 . our general practice and experience in scour prediction. and our review of the design process shown in Figure 30 and the documentation provided to us. Lima. SF36292. However. 2007. 2007 Figure 30. indicate that certain phenomena could play an important role in the prediction of scour risk for the Camisea system. result in a reasonable overall design basis for pipeline burial depth. Peru. when combined.
Our review of the overall scour design concludes that there is some uncertainty as to whether each stream crossing is protected from scour over the long term and during extreme flood events. To mitigate this potential residual risk. 9. These measures would help to mitigate potential risks from large-scale flood events.3 Conclusions The design team’s approach of utilizing their local knowledge and site-specific investigations in their scour analysis appears to be sound. to identify which crossings may require further risk mitigation measures.June 8.003 A0F0 0607 0806 93 . 2007 Our review of the overall scour design concludes that there is some uncertainty as to whether each stream crossing is protected from scour over the long term and during extreme flood events. These methodologies are incorporated into the design procedure set forth in FHWA HEC-18. such as the construction of additional fortifications and flow control measures. TgP has committed to study all river crossings in 2007. SF36292. primarily due to the limitations of the available hydrologic data and the use of the clear-water contraction scour equation. TgP fortified several river crossings and smaller streams to mitigate scour risk. TgP has committed resources in 2007 to investigate the risk of scour damage at each river crossing. During our field inspections in 2006. -20. which are widely used in the design of scour protection for key infrastructure. and to design and construct additional mitigation measures where necessary. and -23. Given the uncertainty and recognizing that the objective of all parties involved is to minimize risk. The more comprehensive identification of potential scour risks in 2007 will be helpful to better identify potential hazards and reduce the current uncertainty. The primary sources of uncertainty arise from sparse hydrologic data and the additional phenomena mentioned above.
First. Overall. 2007 10 Summary and Conclusions Exponent was retained to provide continued technical assistance to the IDB.June 8. As these efforts identify risks to the integrity of the pipeline. (5) hydrostatic testing of the system was in compliance with the required ASME SF36292.2 Pipeline Construction–Related Risks Overall. risk management actions above and beyond those underway and completed to date may be necessary. (4) radiography of all girth welds was performed per API 1104. the system was designed such that external soil loads would be mitigated by geotechnical stabilization measures to be constructed at sites deemed to pose a geotechnical or geological hazard. 10. (3) the issued welder certificates and qualifications of the inspectors were in compliance with API 1104. related to the Camisea Transportation System.1 Pipeline Design–Related Risks Our review indicates that the system was designed to comply with the engineering code requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)82. such that hydraulic risks of the design are minimal and consistent with other pipelines. and that TgP has taken actions in 2006 to significantly reduce these risks to the system.003 A0F0 0607 0806 94 . the review showed that (1) the more than 100. TgP continues to address pipeline integrity and risk issues on an ongoing basis. our investigation indicates that the primary risks to the pipeline are geological and geotechnical. the pipe wall thickness is sufficient to contain the internal pressures of the transported hydrocarbon products along the entire length of the pipeline. 10.000 individual pipe segments were specifically built for this system and consistent with API 5L requirements. Second. Furthermore. (2) all pipe segments were subsequently coated with an outer high-density polyethylene (HDPE) layer to protect the exterior from the environment.
8 [Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems] is the applicable code for the larger NG pipeline. dynamic. 2007 codes and performed along the entire length of both pipelines.4 [Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids] is the applicable Code for the NGL pipeline. This program allows for the early detection and subsequent correction of potential problem areas. The spill incidents and observed performance of the system as of early 2006 caused TgP to set into motion an aggressive geotechnical remediation program that began in earnest in April 2006. and (6) construction of the pipeline used methods that employed standard engineering procedures. and sensitive. 82 ASME B31. 10. and geologic instability caused one of the five spill incidents (#3).June 8. we observed evidence that some geotechnical stabilization measures implemented during or immediately following construction proved to be insufficient to adequately mitigate external soil pressures acting on portions of the NGL pipeline. complex.003 A0F0 0607 0806 95 . we conclude that geotechnical and geologic conditions posed the most significant risk to the integrity and reliable operation of the system. We expect that the continuous. However. will further reduce the geotechnical-related risks to the pipeline system. observations. Based on Exponent’s review. Exponent believes that the successful implementation of the above. the severity and challenges of the dynamic terrain led to the construction of additional robust geotechnical remedial measures at more than 100 sites in 2006. SF36292. and the construction of additional geotechnical mitigation measures in 2007. and ASME B31. Exponent also reviewed a monitoring program initiated by TgP and COGA to help reduce the risk of future failure resulting from external geotechnical forces.3 Geotechnical and Geology-Related Risks The geotechnical and geologic conditions along the pipe alignment are diverse. and engineering experience. Ultimately. Geotechnical instability caused or substantially contributed to two of the five spill incidents (#1 and #5). During our inspections in 2006. ongoing implementation of the risk matrix process and monitoring program may identify additional sites that are not included in the current risk matrix as new manifestations of ground movement are observed or detected.
(2) seismic risk management would benefit from an update of the design ground motions. TgP is currently excavating these sites to perform a more detailed evaluation and initiate the appropriate repair measures if required. First. this portion of the NGL pipeline may be subject to this potential risk over the long term. 10. Therefore. results of the MFL inspection tool and evaluation of metal loss per ASME B31G have shown that. TgP performed an inline inspection of the NGL pipeline in 2006 using the Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) inspection tool and a geometric inline inspection tool. during construction. and (3) the effects of wave propagation on the pipeline at rigid connections and major curves and bends should be re-evaluated further. all the welds were x-rayed. as part of their pipeline integrity management plan. Although seismic hazard studies were performed as part of the system design. TgP has reported that the inspection of the NGL pipeline identified 30 reportable defects per requirements of DOT 49 CFR 195. and the entire pipeline was hydrostatically tested. and TgP’s ongoing and prior geotechnical construction program reduces the likelihood of soil movement. However. and we recommend that this should be evaluated as part of TgP’s ongoing pipeline integrity program (see Section 11). 2007 10. Second. Removal of the loading is a good way to further mitigate the risk.003 A0F0 0607 0806 96 . our review suggests that (1) the potential for permanent ground displacements should be re-evaluated more comprehensively at the most susceptible sites. currently.5 Seismic-Related Risks The Camisea system lies within regions that are prone to very large and frequent earthquakes. reducing the potential number of weld-related and pipeline material defects. no severe external and internal corrosion damage exists along the NGL pipeline. it appears that there is a relatively elevated frequency of metal loss occurrences within the first 50 km of the NGL pipeline. Consequently. any growth of such defects that would lead to the rupture of the pipe requires the presence of external loading.4 Pipeline Integrity–Related Risks Several approaches have been adopted by TgP to reduce pipeline integrity-related risks. It is our understanding that TgP is currently engaged in a review of seismic risks. Overall.June 8. to determine whether SF36292. strong ground shaking generated by large earthquakes poses a substantial risk of damaging the pipeline and disrupting operations.452.
If and when ongoing pipeline integrity management efforts identify additional issues. to identify which crossings may require further risk mitigation measures.June 8. and Exponent has been retained to provide continued technical assistance to the IDB on this matter. risk management actions above and beyond those currently being taken may be required. it appears to Exponent at this time that TgP is performing adequate pipeline integrity management actions. However. SF36292. primarily due to the limitations of the available hydrologic data. and that these actions have significantly reduced the risk to the system. 10.7 Summary TgP has agreed with the IDB to implement the recommendations listed in Section 11. Based on available information obtained during Exponent’s investigation and the proposed actions. To mitigate this potential residual risk. 10. However.003 A0F0 0607 0806 97 . future information and risks need to be continually and properly evaluated.6 Scour-Related Risks The design team’s approach of utilizing their local knowledge and site-specific investigations in their scour analysis appears to be sound. we recommended and TgP has committed to study all river crossings in 2007. Exponent also notes that pipeline integrity management is a continuous process. and thus. our review of the overall scour design concludes that there is some uncertainty as to whether each stream crossing is fully protected from scour over the long term during extreme flood events. 2007 these potential seismic risks are acceptable for this system or whether mitigation measures should be considered. such as the construction of additional fortifications and flow control measures. which includes review of these actions and additional site visits in 2007.
At a minimum. which TgP has committed to implement. and installation of monitoring equipment at specific sites. Exponent has recently made several recommendations to further reduce the risk. from which TgP and the IDB have developed a technical action plan for 2007. with mechanical pipe integrity. TgP should continue to apply the risk assessment method as described herein in a proactive manner to other sections of the pipeline. and river scouring as secondary risks. and will identify means and responsibilities for execution of such remedial measures. 2. the plan should clearly define the framework and approach for making management decisions in terms of what geotechnical remedial measures should be implemented. our investigation indicates that the primary risks to the pipeline are geological and geotechnical. Overall.June 8. 11. such as the excavation of specific sites to verify data from the inline MFL inspection. TgP has implemented various actions to help reduce these risks.003 A0F0 0607 0806 98 . Exponent recommends that TgP develop a comprehensive risk management plan (RMP) that establishes a framework for pipeline integrity risk management.1 Geotechnical and Geologic The following are geotechnical and geological recommendations that apply to the pipeline alignment: 1. including various interim recommendations made by Exponent during our investigation. SF36292. based on the results and conclusions of this investigation. seismic events. 2007 11 Recommendations Exponent performed a pipeline integrity analysis of the pipeline components of the Camisea Transportation System. These recommendations. performance of rigorous site-specific stability analysis. construction of additional geotechnical stabilization measures in 2006. are described in the following sections.
Exponent recommends that attention and care be given to proper soil conditioning and compaction of backfill behind and in front of retaining walls and other remedial structures.June 8. Proper compaction will reduce forces acting on the walls and reduce potential ground cracks that could form in poorly compacted fill behind walls. 7. TgP should continue the implementation of the ROW inspection program as described in Section 6.5-cm-diameter perforated metal pipe into the ground using SF36292. 5. Piezometers to monitor water levels at nearly all sites of geotechnical stabilization. We recommend that the results and findings from this analysis be transmitted from engineers at Lurin to the COGA field personnel on a regular and frequent basis. Exponent recommends that the project purchase a small drilling and sampling rig that is portable using helicopters. piezometers can be constructed by hand by driving 2. TgP installed strain gauges on the pipelines at seven locations. 4. 2007 3. We understand that some equipment has been purchased since then and is being used at the COGA office at Kiteni. Prior to our site inspections. Exponent recommended some basic geotechnical testing equipment to perform index property testing of soil samples taken from the borings made on the project. The strain gauge program should provide the type of data that will allow TgP to evaluate movement in the pipelines and should allow a preemptive remedial program to be implemented at a specific location. 6. In addition to the above general recommendations. Exponent recommends that the following geotechnical technologies be employed at specific sites as appropriate: 8. should the data indicate that stabilization is either necessary or desirable. The reduction of potential ground cracks will simplify the geotechnical investigation at these locations.003 A0F0 0607 0806 99 . During the past site inspections. At most of the locations.
increases or decreases in the rate of flow. Detailed geotechnical investigations. 10. 9. SF36292. Specific observations and physical measurements to be made at individual sites. and to perform conventional stability analyses of existing slopes at the site. c. and construction of remedial measures is currently underway. Slope inclinometers to monitor subsurface movements in soil and rock. Nature and amount of the occurrence of surface water flows. and interpret results. 2007 simple hand drive hammers. to evaluate soil strength and groundwater levels. including soil sampling in borings and test pits. as discussed with TgP. Examples of observations and measurements are as follows: a. as necessary. Exponent recommends that a detailed geotechnical analysis be performed to identify subsurface conditions and construct cross sections for this site. analyze. Alignment of concrete-lined surface water channels and soil-cement bag current breakers and lined channels. Following completion of this work.June 8. to be performed at PS #2 as soon as possible. monitor. It is our understanding that TgP has performed this geotechnical study. especially noting new occurrences. Pipe should be relatively heavy (schedule 80) pipe with threaded couplings. Nature and size of ground cracking or other indications of displacement in the slopes. as discussed with TgP. and qualified personnel to install. and other such observations. This work will require the use of the portable drilling and sampling equipment. This may involve placement of simple staking to assist in making precise quantitative measurements of movement.003 A0F0 0607 0806 100 . presence of discoloration. b. 11. Installation of these will require the use of portable drilling equipment.
This study shall consider factors that are very likely to play a part in some of the stream crossings where more complex processes are active. damage to check dams. including an experimental evaluation of the nucleation of circumferential cracks at pipe girth welds that are loaded externally (i. 11.2 Seismic TgP should perform a complete and comprehensive upgrade to the seismic hazard assessment for the system. such as long-term degradation. Alignment of the gabion walls at each location. 11. TgP has committed to perform a root-cause analysis of the first.4 Pipe To reduce pipe integrity–related risks. and possible floods of relatively extreme magnitude. fourth.June 8. the seismic risk management plan and perform any required upgrades. TgP should implement. or shifting of rock protection on the floors of streambeds. Later. e. if necessary. This information shall be used to update.003 A0F0 0607 0806 101 . SF36292. design ground motions. retreat of stream banks. if necessary. and fifth spill incidents.3 Scour TgP should evaluate the scour potential and existing countermeasures at each river crossing and should perform a scour risk analysis that classifies the scour risk at each river crossing. and effects of wave propagation on the pipeline at rigid connections and major curves and bends. soil movement). Based on the analysis. Formation of erosion gullies. 2007 d.. 11. appropriate remedial measures. specifically related to the potential for permanent ground displacements.e. lateral shifting of the stream banks. TgP will investigate the feasibility of identifying circumferential cracks along the system and will continue with its external excavation program to make further advances in the interpretation of the recently performed MFL inline inspection.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.