PIPELINE

APPLICATION OF UNDERWATER WELDING

PROCESSES FOR SUBSEA PIPELINES
JANUARY 30, 2014 LEAVE A COMMENT

While welding repairs or hot tapping onshore pipelines is a common occurrence,

welding repairs on subsea pipelines is most often never even considered. However,
the risks involved with welding subsea in-service pipelines underwater is present and
needs to be managed by ensuring that, when conducted welding is performed in a
reproducible and consistent manner.

The fact that electric arc technology could operate underwater has been

known for over a 100 years. The first ever underwater welding was carried out by
British Admiralty Dockyard for sealing leaking ship rivets below the water line in the
early 1900s and the specific waterproof electrodes and the methods to use
underwater were developed in Holland by Van der Willingen in 1946.
Increasing the underwater welding practice
In recent years, the number of offshore structures, pipelines, and platforms being
installed in deeper waters has increased. Some of these pipelines and structures will
experience failures. Any repair for these on location will require the use of
underwater welding.
When confronted with the issue of underwater welding, we often question: Why
should we consider underwater welding in the first place? The immediate answer is
Why not?

Its true; it is not a commonly-used technique and it does require meticulous

planning, availability of highly-skilled tradesmen and tenacity to be successful. Even
then, it is still a viable technique.

If the issues are analyzed, there is no valid reason not to consider underwater
welding, especially if production losses due to outage for repairs is punitive. Sunsea
welding generally needs specialized welding knowledge combined with diving skills,
which is more demanding than run-of-the-mill commercial divers can offer. Subsea
welding covers areas of repairing pipelines, offshore oil platforms and ships.

Subsea welding also reduces the cost for the company by directly carrying out the
welding work on location, saving time lost in production to the company.

Furthermore, because of the offshore exploration, drilling, and recovery of gas and oil
in deeper waters today, it is necessary to have the capability to repair pipelines and
the portion of drill rigs and production platforms which are deep underwater.

Risks and precautions

Welding underwater can be a dangerous profession if precautions arent taken. The
main risks are electric shock and the possibility of producing in the arc mixtures of
hydrogen and oxygen in pockets, which might set off an explosion. The other
common danger is breathing nitrogen in the air mix, which is absorbed into the blood
but not metabolized by the body at depths under pressure. This could turn into
bubbles on ascent and paralyze the diver. Curiously, the risk of drowning is not
considered in commercial diving because that is the first hurdle to overcome in this
profession.
The quantity of dives, dive repetitiveness, depth of the operations, time spent
underwater and the exhausting nature of a specific task increase these risks
significantly. Appropriate safety measures are provided to the diver via emergency air
or gas supply, stand-by divers and decompression chambers. The diving-related
health and safety procedures are managed by strict governing guidelines and work
procedures.

When subsea welding is completed, both the welder and the structures being welded
are at risk. The welder has to be very careful to avoid receiving an electric shock. For
this, adequate precaution is taken by insulating the welder and limiting the voltage of
welding sets. Continuous control of hydrogen and oxygen build-up is managed by
removal and kept away from the arc to minimise any potential explosion.

Lastly, the welders time under water is controlled by using saturation diving
chambers and regular rest periods in between. Inspection of an underwater weld is
very difficult and complicated when compared to surface welding, but as it is the only
controlling process of the quality of the weld, it is always done. The weld is inspected
very carefully to confirm that no defects remain.

There are many underwater welding schools located in different parts of the world,
including Australia, to train commercial divers. Historically, underwater welding was
restricted to salvage operations and emergency repair work with limited depths of
less than 9 m.

Wet welding the way to go

There are two well-developed major categories of underwater welding process: one is
welding in a wet environment; the other is welding in a dry environment.
Working underwater to weld serves to provide a number of benefits. Firstly, there is
no need to pull the structure out from under water to perform work. In addition, many
structures like oil rigs and ship hulls may become damaged at sea, necessitating the
need for immediate work below the surface.

Because of the poor quality and difficulty in the process of welding underwater in the
past, welding in the wet environment was used primarily for emergency repairs in
shallow water. For example, to weld a patch for short duration until a complete repair
could be performed in dry docks. With more experience and the advent of special
welding rods and the persistence of some ambitious individuals and companies
improved results were achieved, which has made wet welding a common occurrence.

Todays underwater arc welding is accomplished in much the same manner as

ordinary arc welding the only variations being that the electrode holder and cable is
well-insulated to eliminate any possible current leakage and electrolysis of the
surrounding water and the coated water-proof electrodes are used so that the
electrodes do not get wet.

The most commonly used wet welding technique is shielded metal arc welding,
informally known as stick welding. The main differences in wet welding equipment
versus onshore welding equipment is that wet welding uses DC current only.

AC is not used as it can electrocute the diver and it is difficult to maintain a welding
arc underwater with AC. The inclusion of a single or dual circuit breaker switch and
 the use of double-insulated cables protect the diver from electrocution. The power
source should be a direct current machine rated at 300 or 400 amperes. Motor
generator welding machines are most suitable for underwater welding.

Typical pipeline repair methods

Typical repair methods, as described in DNV RP F113, are to use fittings for repairs
and tie-in of submarine pipelines.
These fittings include: couplings, clamps, T-branch connections and isolation plugs.
Mechanical means are used to connect fittings such as sleeves/couplings and T-
branches to the pipeline and welding subsequently used to make the repair
permanent.

The section on the strength of the mechanical attachments is also applicable to

pipeline recovery tools. Couplings connect pipes by direct attachment to the pipe
walls via mechanical means and welded. Flange joins pipes via thick, machined
pieces of additional material that is welded to the pipe ends prior to installation.
Clamps are fitted externally to the pipeline to prevent leaks or add strength. Hot-tap
T-branch connections are fitted externally to the pipeline assembly even during
operation. A pressurized pipeline is machined open to allow fluid flow through the
branch. Pipeline isolation plugs or smart plugs are pumped with the pipeline fluid to
the repair site and then activated to form an isolating barrier that can resist
differential pressure.

The pipe itself represents the key member of the repair assembly with consequential
limitations such as, but not limited to, pipe wall strength, surface irregularities, and
deviations in shape. Fittings for sub-sea repair must be installed with caution to
reduce the likelihood of damage. Coupling strength should be sufficient in resisting
stresses from all relevant loads, within a factor of safety as defined in the standard.

Avoiding pipeline damage

Pipeline damage after installation may be caused by internal and external corrosion,
hydrogen-induced stress cracking, unstable seabed conditions, anchors, and dropped
objects from the surface.
The risk of damage depends on the intensity of surface activities such as ship
transport and offshore operations, depth, seabed conditions and the design of the
pipeline itself. The extent of possible damage will vary from insignificant to a fully
buckled or parted pipeline. Consequently, the repair and repair preparedness
strategy depends on this.

The following steps have to be taken to select an appropriate repair method:

Detailed selection criteria this can be location type and strength requirement
of sleeve, sleeve design and fabrication mechanical attachment requirements,
handling requirements; and,
A pipeline repair procedure manual.
This manual should include:

Avoiding burn-through, factors affecting burn through such as wall thickness,

heat input, and operational parameters such as pressure, temperature and flow
characteristics;
Prevention of hydrogen cracking concerns factors;
 Selecting an appropriate procedure welding procedure options, predicting
required heat input, inter-pass temperatures, pre-heating and maintaining;
Proper electrode handling, welding sequence, and control of heat-input level;
Welder/procedure qualification;
Welder training;
Code and regulatory requirements (changes to API 1104);
Code requirements for weld deposition repair; and,
Inspection and testing.
Final thoughts
My experience has shown that defects found in sub-sea pipelines can be permanently
repaired by using mechanical intervention and underwater welding technology more
safely, quickly and economically than any alternative technique. However, significant
amounts of time and resources are still being applied to test and research programs
to provide proven solutions for new repair applications. These will in turn provide the
worldwide pipeline community with the correct answers and operational security
required in the future.
Source:
Vijayaraghavan, Vijay. Application of Underwater Welding Processes For Subsea
Pipelines. The Australian Pipeliner October 2011. Principal Integrity and QA
Engineer, Santos
Online: http://pipeliner.com.au/news/application_of_underwater_welding_processes_fo
r_subsea_pipelines/063794/
PIPELINE

HOW DOES PIPELINE PIGGING WORK?

JANUARY 30, 2014 LEAVE A COMMENT

While buildup in a pipeline can cause transmittal slows or even plugging of the
pipeline, cracks or flaws in the line can be disastrous. A form of flow assurance for oil
and gas pipelines and flowlines, pipeline pigging ensures the line is running smoothly.

The maintenance tool, pipeline pigs are introduced into the line via a pig trap, which
includes a launcher and receiver. Without interrupting flow, the pig is then forced
through it by product flow, or it can be towed by another device or cable. Usually
cylindrical or spherical, pigs sweep the line by scraping the sides of the pipeline and
pushing debris ahead. As the travel along the pipeline, there are a number functions
the pig can perform, from clearing the line to inspecting the interior.
 Foam pig
There are two main hypotheses for why the process is called pipeline pigging,
although neither have been proved. One theory is that pig stands for Pipeline
Intervention Gadget. The other states that a leather-bound pig was being sent
through the pipeline, and while it passed, the leather squeaked against the sides of
the pipe, sounding like a squealing pig.

Engineers must consider a number of criteria when selecting the proper pig for a
pipeline. First, its important to define what task the pig will be performing. Also, size
and operating conditions are important to regard. Finally, pipeline layout is integral to
consider when choosing a pig.

Because every pipeline is different, there is not a set schedule for pigging a line,
although the quantity of debris collected in a pipeline and the amount of wear and
tear on it can increase the frequency of pigging. Today, pipeline pigging is used
during all phases of the life of a pipeline.

Types of Pipeline Pigs

Although first used simply to clear the line, the purpose of pipeline pigging has
evolved with the development of technologies. Utility pigs are inserted into the
pipeline to remove unwanted materials, such as wax, from the line. Inline inspection
pigs can also be used to examine the pipeline from the inside, and specialty pigs are
used to plug the line or isolate certain areas of the line. Lastly, gel pigs are a liquid
chemical pigging system.
 Debris after pigging
Similar to cleaning your plumbing line, utility pigs are used to clean the pipeline of
debris or seal the line. Debris can accumulate during construction, and the pipeline is
pigged before production commences. Also, debris can build up on the pipeline, and
the utility pig is used to scrape it away. Additionally, sealing pigs are used to remove
liquids from the pipeline, as well as serve as an interface between two different
products within a pipeline. Types of utility pigs include mandrel pigs, foam pigs, solid
cast pigs and spherical pigs

Pipeline pig
Inspection pigs, also referred to as in-line inspection pigs or smart pigs, gather
information about the pipeline from within. . The type of information gathered by
smart pigs includes the pipeline diameter, curvature, bends, temperature and
pressure, as well as corrosion or metal loss. Inspection pigs utilize two methods to
gather information about the interior condition of the pipeline: magnetic flux leakage
(MFL) and ultrasonics (UT). MFL inspects the pipeline by sending magnetic flux into
the walls of the pipe, detecting leakage, corrosion, or flaws in the pipeline. Ultrasonic
inspection directly measures the thickness of the pipe wall by using ultrasonic sounds
to measure the amount of time it takes an echo to return to the sensor
Specialty pigs, such as plugs, are used to isolate a section of the pipeline for
maintenance work to be performed. The pig plug keeps the pipeline pressure in the
line by stopping up the pipeline on either side of where the remedial work is being
done.
A combination of gelled liquids, gel pigs can be used in conjunction with
conventional pigs or by themselves. Pumped through the pipeline, there are a
number of uses for gel pigs, including product separation, debris removal,
hydrotesting, dewatering and condensate removal, as well as removing a stuck pig.
Because there now exist multi-diameter pipelines, dual and multi-diameter pigs have
been developed, as well.

Source:Online: http://www.rigzone.com/training/insight.asp?insight_id=310&c_id=19
(30 January 2014)
PIPELINE

CORROSION CONTROL IN OIL AND GAS

PIPELINES
JANUARY 30, 2014 LEAVE A COMMENT

RFEC system for inspection of unpiggable pipelines.

In the United States, the annual cost associated with corrosion damage of structural
components is greater than the combined annual cost of natural disasters, including
hurricanes, storms, floods, fires and earthquakes. Similar findings have been made by
studies conducted in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan.

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety, internal

corrosion caused approximately 15% of all reportable incidents affecting gas
transmission pipelines over the past several years, leading to an average cost of $3
million annually in property damage, as well as several fatalities. The need to
manage and mitigate corrosion damage has rapidly increased as materials are placed
in more extreme environments and pushed beyond their original design life.

Typical corrosion mechanisms include uniform corrosion, stress corrosion cracking,

and pitting corrosion (Figure 1). Corrosion damage and failure are not always
considered in the design and construction of many engineered systems. Even if
corrosion is considered, unanticipated changes in the environment in which the
structure operates can result in unexpected corrosion damage. Moreover, combined
effects of corrosion and mechanical damage, and environmentally assisted material
damage can result in unexpected failures due to the reduced load carrying capacity
of the structure.

Figure 1: Localized corrosion in process piping, such as in the

stainless steel pipe shown here, can lead to through-wall
penetration (inset).
Ensuring long-term, cost-effective system integrity requires an integrated approach
based on the use of inspection, monitoring, mitigation, forensic evaluation, and
prediction. Inspections and monitoring using sensors can provide valuable
information regarding past and present exposure conditions but, in general, they do
not directly predict remaining life. Carefully validated computer models, on the other
hand, can predict remaining life; however, their accuracy is highly dependent on the
quality of the computer model and associated inputs. Mitigation (corrosion
prevention) methods and forensic evaluations play a key role in materials selection,
assessment and design. All of these corrosion-control elements represent long-
standing areas of research and development at Southwest Research Institute
(SwRI).

Pipeline Inspection
A significant portion of many pipeline systems cannot be inspected through
traditional methods. Nondestructive evaluation (NDE) and inspection tools are critical
to assessing the integrity of pipelines. Traditional NDE methods involve the use of
pipeline inspection gauges (PIGs), which travel through the inside of a pipe and
detect the presence of mechanical damage or corrosion.
Researchers at SwRI have developed an inspection system for inspecting pipelines
that cannot accommodate traditional PIGs (Figure 2). This system uses remote field
eddy current (RFEC), and was designed for use with the Carnegie Mellon Explorer II
Robot. However, this technology can be adapted to other transport mechanisms. The
system can expand to inspect 6-8 inch (150-200 mm) diameter lines. The sensor
arms retract to accommodate line restrictions, such as elbows, tees and gate valves.

Figure 2. RFEC system for inspection of unpiggable pipelines.

SwRI has also developed a guided-wave inspection technology that can be used to
inspect pipelines and other structural components such as tubes, rods, cables and
plates. The Magnetostrictive Sensor (MsS) inspection system uses inexpensive ribbon
cables and thin magnetostrictive strips that are bonded to the component for
inspection. The sensors attached to the pipe can accommodate a range of pipeline
diameters, which is a significant advantage of guided-wave inspection systems that
use an array of piezoelectric sensors. Because the sensors are low profile and
relatively low cost, permanent installation of the sensors to perform structural health
monitoring is a practical option.

Corrosion Fatigue
Corrosion can degrade the mechanical integrity of a material through chemical
attack. For example, the presence of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) has been found to
reduce the fatigue life of offshore riser materials by approximately a factor of 10, and
in the presence of a notch (that acts as an initiation point for corrosion fatigue) the
fatigue performance can be decreased by a factor of 100. SwRI has developed
customized test facilities for characterizing the performance of pipeline materials in
corrosive environments. Figure 3a shows a servohydraulic load frame setup with a
custom-designed test cell and redundant H2S containment systems. Full-thickness
fatigue specimens (Figure 3b) are machined from riser pipes to preserve through-
thickness residual stresses and to capture welds in joined pipe.
SwRI recently developed a high pressure, high temperature (HPHT) corrosion fatigue
test facility. In this facility the underlying fatigue crack growth behavior of riser
materials subject to HPHT H2S (and other aggressive) environments can be
quantified (Figure 3c). This unique test facility provides the capability to quantify
inter-related corrosion-fatigue mechanisms, and provide data for calibrating and
validating corrosion-fatigue computer models.
Figure 3: a) Servohydraulic load frame with H2S corrosion
fatigue test; b) One-meter-long specimen; c) high-pressure
high-temperature corrosion fatigue test.
Corrosion Exposure Testing
As new materials are developed and environmental conditions change, assessing
material performance due to corrosion and stress corrosion cracking is of increasing
importance. SwRI has a well-established corrosion testing facility to perform HPHT
testing in extremely aggressive environments. In most cases, the testing
environment consists of a simulated process or reasonable worst-case scenario.
These include determining the effects of H2S, CO2, oxygen, and microbiological
organisms on corrosion/cracking of pipeline materials. Testing conforms to NACE,
ASTM, API, or ISO standards and test materials are analyzed for mass loss, localized
corrosion or stress corrosion cracking (SSC)/sulfide stress cracking (SSC).
SwRI staffers are highly experienced in designing, constructing and operating
specialty tests to mimic a specific operation that does not conform to standardized
methods. One such capability is performing the environmental exposure on the API
16C Flexible Choke and Kill Systems, which evaluates the effects of gas permeation,
gas decompression and test fluid exposure at the rated temperature (Figure 4).
 Figure 4: Photograph of the API 16C Flexible Choke and Kill
line testing
Corrosion Prediction
Computer modeling is useful to help understand the mechanisms of internal
corrosion, external corrosion and stress corrosion cracking, and to predict corrosion
damage, failure and the most likely location of corrosion in oil and gas pipelines.
These predictions can help support the development of practical guidelines to assist
the pipeline industry in mitigating existing, or preventing future, corrosion failures.
A four-step, tiered approach is used by SwRI. The first step is to develop
comprehensive fundamental models, which forms the foundation of the approach.
Validation of the model against field and laboratory data is performed in the second
step to ensure the correct physics are embedded in the model. To simplify use of the
model in practical applications, the third step is to develop simplified models. During
this step, rate-controlling variables or groups of variables are identified. These
simplified models contain only the necessary physics and the values of the
corresponding inputs to predict the performance of the system. The end goal of the
overall modeling approach is step 4, development of guidelines for practical
applications of the model. The tiered modeling approach has been successfully used
for several recent applications:

Predicting corrosion in coating disbonded regions with and without the effect
of flow.
Development of the dry gas internal corrosion direct assessment (ICDA)
standard, NACE SP 0206-2006.
Prediction of the most probable corrosion locations in a long underground
pipeline due to variability in elevation, flow characteristics and materials.
Prediction of the most likely conditions for internal corrosion due to variability
in operations, gas quality upsets, and water intrusions.
Corrosion Sensing And Monitoring
While ICDA models can provide general guidelines to identify when internal
inspections should occur, environmental and material uncertainties can lead to
situations where excavation is performed unnecessarily, or water exists but is not
predicted. In either case, costs associated with inspection or failure can be
significant. To address this, sensing and monitoring technologies have been
developed to enable remote interrogation of the internal corrosion of pipelines.
The wireless mobile sensor, travels inside a gas pipeline detecting the presence of
water. The system communicates through a distributed wireless sensor network. The
sensor body is an injection-molded polymer designed to survive high hydrostatic
forces and impact on the pipeline walls while traveling along the pipe. This program
has evolved using internal IR&D funding from both SwRI and Aginova, Inc.

The multielectrode array sensor (MAS) probe is ideally suited for monitoring corrosion
rates in process streams. Multiple discrete elements or electrodes are used to
replicate the material of interest. The MAS probe measures corrosion rates by
assessing the current flow between coupled electrodes. The electrodes can be
manufactured from a wide range of alloys and product forms. SwRI has used this
method to monitor the corrosion of a variety of materials.

The wireless mobile sensor and the MAS probe sensor are just two examples of
corrosion sensing and monitoring technologies. SwRI has developed a suite of
corrosion sensing and monitoring devices. Significant inspection and repair costs can
be avoided with the use of tools such as these.

Deposition Coatings
The deposition of material coatings can be effectively employed to protect surfaces
of components from wear, erosion and corrosion. A variety of coatings have been
studied including metals, ceramics and polymers. A number of deposition techniques
have also been developed. One example is magnetron sputtering, where 20-30 m
thick Al-Ce-Co coatings are deposited on Al alloys and 1018 carbon steel, which is
sufficient for most applications where corrosion and erosion are possible.
Microstructural analyses show that under certain deposition conditions,
amorphous/nano-crystalline structures are obtained, which show superior corrosion
resistance in electrochemical tests.
Diamond-like carbon (DLC) coatings can be produced using the plasma immersion ion
deposition (PIID) process. The coatings are very hard and dense and can be applied
to many components for increased wear and erosion resistance. In fact, SwRI recently
developed a technique for applying DLC coatings to the inner surface of pipeline
segments.

Ti-Si-C-N based nanocomposite coatings deposited using the Plasma Enhanced

Magnetron Sputtering (PEMS) process have shown high-hardness (>40GPa) and
superior erosion and wear resistance. PEMS was originally developed for use on gas
turbine compressor blades and vanes and steam turbine blades against solid particle
erosion and liquid droplet erosion, and won an R&D 100 award in 2009.

Laboratory tests have shown that the erosion resistance of these coatings can
increase the lifetime by a few to more than 100 times as compared to uncoated
substrates. The corrosion resistance for Ti-Si-C-N coated samples has been shown to
be comparable to or better than the uncoated Ti-6Al-4V substrate, which already
exhibits excellent corrosion resistance.

SwRI has developed a suite of deposition-coating solutions for addressing a range of

erosion, corrosion and wear issues. As noted, large-scale production of corrosion-
resistant coatings using vacuum deposition techniques is possible (e.g. Al-Co-Ce
coatings and DLC coatings). For more severe environments, vacuum-deposited Ti-Si-
C-N nanocomposite coatings have been successfully used to protect important
components from erosion, abrasion and corrosion damage.

Forensic Evaluations
Although a comprehensive corrosion-control program based on inspection, monitoring
and model predictions can be an effective means for controlling pipeline corrosion,
unexpected events or undocumented changes in operating conditions can still lead to
premature pipeline failure. When these occur, it is essential to perform a thorough
forensic evaluation of the failure to determine the failure mechanism and its root
cause. By identifying the root cause of the failure, the pipeline operator will know if
this resulted from an event or operating condition outside of the general conditions
included in the corrosion-control program.
Steps can then be identified to mitigate future failures by eliminating recurrence of
the event. If such an event is not identified as the root cause of failure, the results of
the evaluation can be instrumental in identifying necessary changes to the corrosion-
control program. Additionally, destructive evaluations, which are a routine part of a
forensic evaluation, can be a valuable tool for validating the effectiveness of a
corrosion-control program.

Summary
Aging infrastructure, increasing performance requirements, cost and safety are all
driving the need for more comprehensive corrosion control. Experimental
assessments of materials in extreme environments will always play a critical role in
supporting material selection and design. More recently, the role of computer
modeling is playing a more prominent role. As our understanding of the fundamental
mechanisms of environmental effects on materials improves, our ability to model
these fundamental mechanisms and predict the integrity of complex structures and
systems has grown.
These models, however, require information regarding initial conditions, operational
conditions, calibration and, most importantly, validation of the predictions. Inspection
tools, sensors, and monitoring systems provide key information, but they cannot
alone provide estimates of future performance. By coupling inspection, monitoring,
mitigation, forensic evaluation, and prediction, a comprehensive corrosion-control
program can be realized. Subsequent remedial actions can then be devised to
counteract the effects of corrosion, thereby helping to assure the integrity of aging
systems.

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the research collaborations and technical support of SwRI
staff members Dr. Stephen Hudak (Material and Component Integrity), Dr. Hegeon
Kwun and Gary Burkhardt (Staff Scientists, Sensor Systems and Non-destructive
Evaluation), Dr. Ronghua Wei (Surface Engineering and Materials Chemistry), Drs.
Marta Jakab and Gustavo Vasquez (Environmental Performance of Materials), and
Steven Clay (Environmental Performance of Materials). The authors also acknowledge
the contributions of Dr. Ashok Sabata, Aginova Inc.
Source:
By Ben H. Thacker, Glenn M. Light, James F. Dante, Elizabeth Trillo, Fengmei Song,
Carl F. Popelar, Kent E. Coulter and Richard A. Page, Southwest Research Institute
San Antonio, TX | March 2010 Vol. 237 No. 3
Online: http://www.pipelineandgasjournal.com/corrosion-control-oil-and-gas-pipelines?
page=show (30 January 2014)
PIPELINE

PIPELINE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

ENHANCES INSPECTION RESULT
JANUARY 30, 2014 LEAVE A COMMENT

Offshore operators often fail to fully benefit from their pipeline programs. In so doing,
they are effectively leaving money on the table, because an effective pipeline
integrity management systems (PIMS) captures all the benefits of an inspection and
enhances the value of an asset throughout its lifecycle.

A well designed and managed pipeline integrity program reduces scheduled and
unscheduled downtime and improves HSE performance. It also helps to assure
greater value for money on inspection and maintenance programs; yields auditable
data to demonstrate regulatory and internal compliance; drives a more efficient
stewardship of assets and resources; improves risk management and preparedness;
enhances corporate governance; and promotes operational confidence.

At the bottom line, it helps to increase uptime and productivity, extend the life of
pipeline assets and significantly improves business performance and the return on
investment.

The costs associated with pipeline failures or unplanned shutdowns are high in terms
of lost production and repairs. HSE problems can raise those costs to another level. A
fully implemented PIMS can prevent many of the failures, incidents, and shutdowns
that typically occur on less well-managed pipelines. Distilled to its essence, PIMS is a
comprehensive risk-assessment program.
 This picture, from an ROV inspection in the
Gulf of Mexico, shows anode wastage with
approximately 50% deterioration. A pipeline
integrity management system (PIMS) captures
all the benefits of an inspection and enhances
 the value of an asset throughout its lifecycle.

Risk assessment
The general categories of risk for offshore pipelines are well known and documented
in a study prepared for the U.S. Minerals Management Service in 2000 and in the
PARLOC studies in the North Sea. These studies analyzed thousands of incidents
involving hazardous liquid and natural gas pipelines, including risers and other
components that occurred between 1984 and 2000. The principal causes of these
incidents were internal and external corrosion, material defects, defects from
construction or installation, equipment malfunction, operator error, and damage from
outside forces. These risks all can be mitigated by managing the integrity of the
pipeline, provided they are accurately identified and assessed.

While risk assessment can be conducted at any time during a pipelines operational
life, and becomes a continuous process in an ongoing PIMS program, it is most
effective when started during the design stage. Risks identified during the design
stage can be mitigated or eliminated with modifications that also reduce future
operating costs.

Strategies also can be developed for managing any additional risks. For example,
careful monitoring of risks during construction and installation will help to ensure that
the condition of the pipeline is thoroughly documented when it is commissioned and
put into service. A complete dossier of accurate data about a pipelines design,
startup condition, and subsequent operational history is of great value when setting
up and operating an effective PIMS.

Risk assessment is also the starting point for establishing a PIMS for operational
pipelines, following the same methods used for new pipelines. The process begins
with a review of the design and condition data, such as inspection and maintenance
reports, as well as operating procedures and HSE systems. Further inspections and
testing may be needed for a complete baseline condition profile. Gap analysis then
pinpoints vulnerabilities and deficiencies, and also identifies strengths, which are
built upon. This is followed by an assessment of the probability and consequences of
every potential failure, which may be conducted with the assistance of risk-based
mechanical integrity (RBMI) software. The results are summarized in a
probability/consequence matrix that clearly ranks each risk. These rankings are used
to determine inspection and maintenance priorities and to recommend changes in
operating and management procedures. The areas of risk that present a high
probability of failure with severe consequences are flagged for diligent monitoring
and a higher frequency of inspections, perhaps using sophisticated technologies.
Risks with a low probability of occurrence and minor consequences simply may be
ignored until a failure occurs.

Risk assessment findings may lead to recommendations for bespoke inspection

programs. For a new pipeline, the assessment will yield clear risk rankings and
inspection priorities, along with a highly optimized frequency schedule. An in-service
pipeline that lacks adequate documentation of its operations could make risk
rankings problematic, so more frequent inspections may be required.

As the operator gains confidence in the data, the inspection program can be
optimized. Where good documentation is available for an existing pipeline, including
complete inspection records, the information will support risk rankings that allow
optimization, which in some cases may lower inspection frequency or alter the
techniques used.

There is no universally recognized standard for offshore pipeline inspection programs

and the overall safety management of pipeline systems. Regulatory agencies in
various regions require operators to prove initially that a pipeline is safe and fit for
purpose and to report certain information, such as results of cathodic protection
tests, at regular intervals. Otherwise, the inspection and maintenance of offshore
pipelines is left to the discretion of individual operators. It is thus essential that
operators understand their risks, assess and rank them accurately, and establish
inspection programs that use the right methods and tools to yield data that represent
the conditions of their pipelines.

Commensurate results
Pipeline integrity is commonly viewed as a technical matter mainly involving
inspections. The available technology is impressive. Sophisticated flow modeling and
probabilistic analysis are available for risk assessment. Intelligent pigs snake though
pipelines carrying many highly sensitive instruments. Remotely operated vehicles fly
along risers and pipeline routes to look for coating damage, external corrosion,
leakage, scour and spanning, while also gathering side-scan sonar images. Chemical
analysis of effluent can detect evidence of corrosion if pigging is not possible.

Yet the results often do not reflect the state-of-the-art technology we employ to
assess risks and determine the condition of our pipelines. The number of failures and
incidents remains stubbornly high. If it were mainly a matter of technology, the
advances should have brought similar improvements.

Experience suggests that how the technology is used and managed plays a critical
role. To achieve the best results, we must fully understand what data we need, select
the right tools and procedures to obtain it, interpret it correctly, act upon the findings,
and use the lessons learned to improve our PIMS performance. All of this requires a
level of expertise that lies outside the core competencies of many pipeline operators.

Pipeline inspection is often seen as a costly imposition done mainly to satisfy

regulatory or internal corporate demands in other words, to put a check in a box.
Only findings of serious defects prompt further action. This shortterm mindset fails to
see inspections as a vital part of a comprehensive process to maintain the long-term
integrity of the pipeline its continuing availability and fitness for service. In the
absence of serious defects, the inspection results are consigned to a shelf without
further review and never again consulted.

Offshore pipeline inspection can be expensive. ROV visual inspection usually requires
support vessels, with attendant day rates. Inspections performed as an exercise
without commitment to pipeline integrity are simply wasteful.

Using intelligent pigs and instrumented ROVs in this context may provide a feeling of
assurance. But, in reality, it can simply amplify the waste. Even a carefully optimized
inspection program can be wasteful if the data is used only to assess a pipelines
condition. We should get more from our efforts than a check in a box and a binder on
a shelf.
Integrity management can increase the value of the investment in monitoring,
inspecting, and maintaining pipelines. The PIMS perspective is comprehensive and
long-term. Since the integrity of a system involves each individual component, PIMS
evaluation and monitoring covers every part and piece of equipment associated with
a pipeline pig launchers and receivers, metering skids, instrumentation and
controls, structural supports, welds and connectors, and coatings. Operating and
environmental factors such as fluid composition, the flow regime and throughput
volumes, the potential for fluid accumulation and slugging, seabed topography,
seawater temperature, salinity and oxygen content, and the strength of currents are
all considered in assessing risks and are then monitored for changes.

Measurement and analysis are not limited to physical components and environmental
factors in a PIM program. All aspects of how a pipeline system is operated and
managed are scrutinized to identify elements of risk and opportunities for
improvement. HSE policies and procedures are closely analyzed and many other
factors that affect system integrity are also considered, including hiring qualifications
and personnel training, compensation and incentives, supervisory organization and
approach, data collection and documentation, and even supply chain and contractor
management. Gaps and deficiencies identified in these and other areas represent
opportunities to further reduce risk and improve performance.

Diligence and Continuity

The area where a PIMS can have the greatest positive impact, however, is in the
quality of inspection data and its beneficial uses. In many instances, inspections do
not target the areas that will yield the most useful data. Or if they do, the tools or
techniques may not be the best ones to measure those parameters accurately; or the
instrumentation may not be calibrated correctly to provide measurements within a
useful range of tolerances. Optimizing the inspection process for data quality and
utility demands a level of expertise that may be difficult for individual pipeline
operators to maintain. In such cases, it often is worth the effort and expense to bring
in a qualified consultant.

Securing appropriate and accurate inspection data remains just a technical exercise,
however, if the data is not used to maximum benefit. Putting the data to good use is
part of the comprehensive nature of a sound integrity management program.
Spotting defects and impending accidents is, of course, primary and of urgent
importance. This information, particularly if it can be reviewed in the context of
previous inspection records, will determine whether remedial or mitigating actions
are required. If no actionable defects are found, the data provides proof to senior
management, regulators, and other stakeholders that the pipeline remains fit for
purpose.

When current data is then added to the historical record of the pipelines condition
going back to the inauguration of the PIMS, the continuous record can be used to
reassess risks and to confirm or modify risk rankings. It also can be used to assess
the PIMS performance and determine whether it should be adjusted or changed. A
lengthening record of clean inspections may allow for beneficial changes in operating
parameters and procedures or a relaxed inspection frequency, measures that lower
costs. Reducing an annual visual ROV inspection to biannual, for example, could save
hundreds of thousands of dollars. Changes of this sort, however, can only be justified
by a continuous data record.
Diligence and continuity are key aspects of a successful PIM program. Details must
receive due attention. Records must be thorough and complete. Confidence based on
poorly managed inspections is always over-confidence. Failure to review and maintain
data continuously will ultimately compromise the ongoing inspection process so that
it loses much of its value and further effort is wasted.

Source:

Boyle, Rachel. Pipeline Management System Enhances Inspection Result.

http://www.lrenergy.org/Asset_Management/Pipeline_Integrity_Management.aspx (30
January 2014)
PIPELINE

THE ROLE OF CATHODIC PROTECTION IN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE INTEGRITY
JANUARY 30, 2014 LEAVE A COMMENT

What Is Out There?

Over 24,000 miles of pipeline have been laid on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in
the Gulf of Mexico since 1948. Over the years, much of this pipeline has been
abandoned or removed, but as of June 1997, there were still some 17,000 miles of
active pipe. Pipe-laying activity has been up and down over the years, somewhat
mirroring the boom and bust cycles of the oil and gas industry. Some 1,222 miles
are over 30 years old, and 5,952 miles have celebrated a 20th anniversary. Obviously
these 5,000-plus miles of pipe would be considered at higher risk from an integrity
standpoint than the 11,000 miles younger than 20. The mere fact that these old lines
are still in operation reflects well on the skills of the corrosion control community
(Figure 1).
Figure 1. Active Gulf of Mexico Pipelines: Mileage vs. Age

External Corrosion Control of Offshore Pipelines

All offshore pipelines are protected from seawater corrosion in the same way. The
primary corrosion control system is pipeline coating. This is supplemented with
cathodic protection (CP) to provide protection at coating defects or holidays. In the
Gulf of Mexico, the pipeline coatings used until the early to mid-1970s were either
asphaltic/ aggregate, Somastic-type, coatings or hot-applied coal tar enamels.
Since then, the trend has been to use fusion-bonded epoxy powder coatings. In the
earlier days, the trend in cathodic protection (CP) was to rely on impressed-current
systems. In the 1960s and early 1970s, zinc bracelet anodes attached to the pipe
were widely used. Since then, more efficient aluminum alloys have surpassed zinc as
the preferred material for offshore galvanic anodes. There are, however, still some
operators using impressed current systems and some using zinc anodes.

Bracelet Anodes
Virtually all new pipelines installed in the Gulf of Mexico are equipped with aluminum
bracelet anodes. There are two basic types, square shouldered and tapered.

The square-shouldered anodes are typically used on pipe that has a concrete weight
coating. When installed, the anodes are flush with, or slightly recessed inside, the
outside diameter of the concrete.

The tapered anodes are designed to be installed on pipelines with only a thin film
corrosion coating. The whole idea is to protect the bracelet anodes during the pipe-
laying process. The anodes are particularly at risk from mechanical damage when the
pipeline travels over the stinger on the back of the lay barge.
Even with these tapered designs, non-weight-coated pipelines still sustain anode
damage, which can in turn cause coating damage. Several methods are being used
to combat this problem. The use of cast-on polyurethane tapers is gaining popularity,
and mounting both halves of the bracelet on top of the pipe is a common technique
when pipe is laid from a reel barge and the anodes have to be attached offshore
(Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 3 Tapered bracelet

Figure 2 Six-inch pipe reeled anodes installed on top of
on the barge Chickasaw pipe

Designing CP Systems for Offshore Pipelines

When designing a cathodic protection system for a pipeline, the corrosion engineer
has to consider the following variables, all of which will have an impact on the final
anode alloy and size selection:

Design life required (minimum is 20 years)

Pipe diameter length and to-from information
Geographic location
Type of coating
Pipe-lay / installation method
Water depth
Burial method
Product temperature
Electrical isolation from platforms or other pipelines

The smart cathodic protection designer will look early on at the intended pipe
installation method, as this will have a direct impact on the amount of coating
damage one may expect (there is also a risk of having anodes detached during the
lay process). In all pipeline design guidelines, the conservative approach is advised.
For example, the majority of early Gulf of Mexico (buried) pipelines were designed on
the basis of 2 mA / ft. of bare steel and 5% coating failure. In essence, this means
taking 5% of the total pipeline surface area, and applying 2 rnA / ft. of cathodic
protection current to it. This may sound reasonable, until one looks at what 5% bare
means:
On a 40 ft. joint of 12 in. pipe, 5% bare coating would have 2 square feet of bare
steel, or to express it another way. 4 linear feet of pipe would have the coating gone
from 180 of the circumference. This is an extremely conservative figure. As a result,
the early pipeline system designs would appear to be very conservative.

Pipeline Integrity
When considering the role of cathodic protection (CP) in pipeline integrity we should
investigate what causes offshore pipelines to fail and leak. If all the failures of
pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico were counted and tabulated, the findings would
probably show the general trend expressed in Figures 4 and 5. (These graphs are
based on studying a limited sample of failure reports from two oil companies.)

Figure 4 Causes of offshore Figure 5 Causes of offshore

pipeline failure riser failure
Since external corrosion is only responsible for a very few of the documented pipeline
failures, we could truthfully say that, in general, the combination of CP and coatings
is doing a good job.

However, we must not be led into a false sense of security. The only reason the
external leaks have not started in earnest is that the old systems were unknowingly
over-designed. Thus, a 25-year design life has effectively turned into 30, 35 or even
40 years.

There is a practical limit on how long sacrificial anodes will last, and it is based on the
auto-corrosion rate of the anode material. If we were to assume that pipeline systems
are all good for at least 30 years, then there should be several thousand miles of
pipeline with depleted CP systems (Figure 1). The question, then, is why are we not
seeing more external failures?

In truth, the answer to that question is that we probably are seeing a higher external
corrosion leak rate than we have at any time in the past. But when will it peak? The
pitting rate of steel in seawater on a well-coated pipeline in the absence of cathodic
protection anodes could vary between 0.01-0.05 inches per year. Thus, it could take
anywhere from 5 to 25 years to pit through an inch of steel. This amount of loss could
be sufficient to cause a pipeline failure. Higher corrosion rates can be generally
expected when the pipe coating has a combination of large damaged areas and
adjacent pinhole defects, and when the pipe is exposed to seawater rather than mud.
There is also a particular risk of microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) on buried
lines with bitumastic-type coatings and depleted cathodic protection.

What Is The Risk?

On pipelines in excess of 30 years old, the risks are quite high. If the cathodic
protection systems have depleted, then corrosion will begin at numerous sites all
over the pipeline. Unless detected and retrofitted, the first leak could be the end of
the pipeline, as the next several hundred wont be far behind. There are only so many
clamps that an operator can afford to install before economic concerns dictate
pipeline replacement or abandonment. Given the cost of laying pipelines offshore
today, many of the lines will never be replaced, and this could result in early deaths
of the oil and gas fields they service. Other old lines are the critical links between the
new deep water fields and the shore-based markets. Loss of these lines will present
an interesting and unenviable dilemma for operators.

What Is The Answer

There are three basic strategies that a pipeline owner can adopt:

1. Survey the pipeline cathodic protection system.

2. Retrofit the cathodic protection anodes on pipelines of a certain vintage.
3. Do nothing (and hope that the laws of electrochemistry will ignore your pipeline),
essentially ignoring the problem.

Cathodic Protection Surveys

Close-interval cathodic protection surveys are the most logical strategy, but strangely
enough, operators in the Gulf of Mexico survey very little. When a survey is actually
run, it is usually of little value because the method used (trailing wire) inherently
produces erroneous data.

There are accurate survey systems available; these either involve physically
contacting the line at intervals or utilizing remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) (Figure
6) to track the pipeline and carry reference electrode arrays above the pipeline at
known locations (a typical plot from such a survey is shown Figure 7). This type of
survey will let the operator see the condition of the line and make informed decisions
regarding retrofitting.
Figure 6 Work-class ROV Challenger equipped for pipeline survey. Photo courtesy of Sonsub Inc.
 Figure 7 Detailed pipeline CP inspection plot. Green trace is current
density, red trace is potential. Downward green spikes indicate anode
locations; upward spikes reflect coating damage.

In addition to the corrosion data shown, the survey will also yield important information on the precise location of the pipeline and the depth of burial below the seabed; these data points can be crucial when designing the eventual anode retrofit.

Retrofit Anodes on Pipelines of a Certain Age

Retrofitting the cathodic protection system with supplemental anodes would only make sense if the line in question is very old and the required additional life were significant. The cost to perform a pipeline cathodic protection inspection will run anywhere from $2,000 to $6,000 per mile, and that cost may be eliminated if the decision to retrofit is made. There will only need to be a post-installation survey, once the new anodes
are laid.

Of course, retrofitting pipeline cathodic protection systems offshore is not always a simple matter, especially when lines are deeply buried. Often, the retrofit program will need an up-front survey to find the pipeline so why not survey it first?

Do Nothing
Very often this decision is made based on the following logic: If I know I have a problem, I will have to take care of it; if I dont survey the pipeline, I will not have to find out whether or not I have a problem. This logic sounds like the chronic smoker who dares not visit the doctor for fear it will be discovered he has lung cancer! A surprising number of operators follow this logic.

Summary
In summary, it must be concluded that cathodic protection plays an absolutely vital role in pipeline integrity offshore. Cathodic protection is cheap and reliable, with an outstanding track record of success in offshore applications. But cathodic protection systems have a finite life and unprotected steel has a very short life in seawater. Check your cathodic protection if the pipeline is more than 25 years old.

About the Author

Jim Britton has worked in the corrosion control industry since 1972 and has been primarily involved in offshore and marine projects since 1975. He holds a bachelors degree in corrosion technology from the United Kingdom. His work brought him to the United States in 1982. In 1986, he founded Deepwater Corrosion Services Inc., which specializes in engineering and manufacturing retrofit cathodic protection systems for
offshore assets. Britton is a consultant for major oil companies worldwide. He has published a variety of articles and has been a guest lecturer at colleges and universities throughout the US. He has been an active member of NACE International since 1979.

Source:
Britton, Jim. The Role of Cathodic Protection in Offshore Pipeline Integrity. Harts Pipeline Digest. Online: http://www.stoprust.com/26-offshore-pipeline-integrity.htm (30 Januari 2014)
PIPELINE

ABOUT FLEXIBLE PIPE

JANUARY 30, 2014 LEAVE A COMMENT

What is flexible pipe?

A fit-for-purpose structure
A flexible pipe is made up of several different layers. The main components are leakproof thermoplastic barriers and corrosion-resistant steel wires. The helically wound steel wires give the structure its high-pressure resistance and excellent bending characteristics, thus providing flexibility and superior dynamic behaviour. This modular construction, where the layers are independent but designed to interact with one another,
means that each layer can be made fit-for-purpose and independently adjusted to best meet a specific field development requirement.

Sumber: http://www.offshorerisertechnology.com/uploads/8/7/0/7/8707355/576920_orig.jpg
Main Characteristic

Flexibility
Flexibility is the distinctive property of flexible pipe. A typical 8 internal diameter (ID) flexible pipe can safely be bent to a radius of 2m or less. This is the reason why flexible dynamic risers have been the enabling technology for floating production systems. This flexibility is also important for flowlines laid on uneven seabed conditions. Flexibility makes it possible to spool the pipe on a reel
or in a carousel for efficient and quick transportation and installation.

Installability
Because the flexible pipe comes in a continuous length, laying speed commonly averages 500m per hour. Separate sections are connected on deck during installation, eliminating the need for any intermediate riser base structure or subsea connections. This elimination of interfaces reduces risk in operation.

Modularity
The independent layers of a flexible structure enable it to be tailored to the precise needs of a specific development. Simple flexible pipes for medium pressure water transport comprise only four layers. The most complex flexible pipes may have up to 19 layers. Beyond the basic fluid barriers and stress-resistant tendons, additional layers can be included to prevent wear between steel layers
(in dynamic applications) or to provide improved thermal insulation (standard flexible pipe already has a much better insulation coefficient than that of steel pipe). Besides including new plastic or steel layers within the product, it is also possible to assemble plastic hoses, electrical cables or optical fibers around a flexible pipe to produce an Integrated Service Umbilical (ISU), or include active heating for flow assurance in
deepwater to produce an Integrated Production Bundle* (IPB).
Corrosion Resistance
Since the steel tendons are not in direct contact with the conveyed fluid, they do not require the same corrosion resistance as steel pipe. This means that our design experience and knowledge of gas diffusion through thermoplastic materials enable us to use carbon steel where the equivalent rigid pipe application would require much more expensive corrosion-resistant alloys.
 Pressure Resistance
Flexible pipes resist all fluid pressures currently encountered in the most severe subsea applications. Again, the modularity of the flexible pipe manufacturing process enables us to adjust thickness, shape and number of steel wire layers to meet the specific requirements of our clients.

Versatility and re-usability

Modularity enables flexible technology to cover very different applications:

flexible products already installed in water depth down to 1,890m

Kill & Choke line for drilling (up to 15,000 psi)
drain pipe & foam lines for onshore refinery applications
RTP (Reinforced Thermoplastic Pipe) for land applications.
Even more important, it means that the flexible pipe structure is constantly evolving to meet stringent field specifications:

higher pressures (up to 7,200 psi for a 9 ID, up to 10,000 psi for a 7.5 ID) on dynamic riser applications
higher temperatures (up to 130C)
enhanced insulation through thick foam fillers laid on SZ machine
active heating
designs available for ultra deepwater (down to 2,500m).
Moreover, flexible pipe is the only product, environmentally friendly, which can be recovered and reinstalled several times to be used successively for several marginal or evolutive field architectures as regularly done for years by Petrobras in Brazilian waters.

Flexible Pipe, brosur technip online:

http://www.technip.com/sites/default/files/technip/publications/attachments/Flexible_pipe_April_2013_Web.pdf
diunduh tanggal 29 Januari 2014