Paper No.

CORROSIONOL
41 The NACE International Annual Conference and Exposition

Smart Pigging Philosophy

Ronald Z Hodgman
Post Ot%ceBox 273407
Concord, CA 94S27

ABSTRACT

The paper presents the authors viewpoint on the current state of in-line inspection technology. The
issue of considering the sizing accuracy of the in-line inspection tool in monitoring corrosion defect
growth and making repair decisions will be covered by the paper.

Keywords: Inline Inspection, Pipeline. Smart Pig, Pipeline Integrity, Close Interval Survey,
Hydrotesting

Why Smart Pig?

Smart Pigging is a cost effective way of determining the true integrity of a pipeliie system. It is a
usefb] tool in protecting the environment and public safkty. However, it has its limitations so it does
not totally replace the use of other methods to monitor pipeline integrity. Nor should it be considered
the only way to monitor pipeline integrity.

Itiormation from a smart pig metal loss survey can be used for optimizing maintenance and can be
used sometimes to avoid the need for hydrotesting.

Copyright
@l 996 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole must be made in writing to NACE
International, Conferences Division, P.0, Box 218340, Houston, Texas 77218-8340. The material presented and the views expressed in this
paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association. Printed in the U.S.A.
 Current Government Regulations

Currently, the use of smart pigs are not required by federal or state agencies. Federal regulations
give minimum requirements for pipeline operation that assume that the pipeline operator will use
state-of-the-art technology to maintain pipeline integrity. Failure of pipeline operators to cost
effecl:ively use new technology to maintain pipeline integrity may result in regulations that force the
use of new technology in a way that is not cost effective.

Alternatives to Smart Pigging

Close interval pipe-to-soil surveys, hydrotesting. or periodic buried pipeline inspections are
considered alternative methods to smart pigging. Like smart pigging, each inspection method has
its advantages and limitations.

Choosing a Smart Pig Inspection Tool

Competition between smart pig inspection companies has resulted in improved inspection tool
performance at lower cost. The gap between the advanced and conventional MFL (Magnetic Flux
Leakage) inspection companies is narrowing. Although advanced MFL tools have advantages over
conventional MFL tools, the additional cost of running a higher resolution MFL tool cannot always
be justified.

Both advanced and conventional MFL tools are subject to the universal limitations of MFL
inspection such as minimum inspection speeds, maximum pipe wall thickness, and the difficulty of
indirectly measuring the depth, length, and shape of a corrosion pit from a MFL signal. A MFL
tool can never be 100% accurate because of the fact that it measures metal loss indirectly.
Although Ultrasonic tools measure defect size directly, they have other limitations that limit their
use.

The fbllowing is a general comparison of Ultrasonic and MFL metal loss inspection tools:

Ultrasonic MFL

● Requiresa fluidcouplant ● No fluid couplant required

● Directmeasurement ● Indirect tneasurement
● Ttnds to be best at detection of defects less than 60%’oof ● Tends to be best at detection of defects greater than Joy. of
pipe wall pipe wall
● Generally works best on pipelines with a wall thickness ● Generally works best on pipelines with a wall thickness less
greater than a half inch than half of an inch
● M~y not detect corrosion damage or accurately measure ● May not detect corrosion pitting less than 3@%oof the pipe
depth of corrosion pits where remaining pipe wall has been wal I
reduced to less than 100 roils (2.54 mm)
● Rtquires the removal of internal scale in order for ● Not as sensitive to internal scale as a Ultrasonic tool
ultrasonic sensors to work properly
● Btst tool for monitoring corrosion rate and detecting ● Due to measurement accuracy limitations. its ability to
internal corrosion activity monitor corrosion rate is limited

41/2
The ~ollovving is a general summary of the differences between Conventional and Advanced MFL
tools

Conventional MFL Advanced MFL

● Lass sensors therefore lower defect resolution.
● Requires special analysis to get estimated corrosion
pit length, depth, and shape information.
● Cannot tell if corrosion damage is internal or
external, however corrosion signature sometimes can
be used to make a educated guess.
● More economical inspection cost but more physical
inspections may be required to determine the
condition of the pipeline.
● Lmg sections of pipeline can be inspected in one run.
● More sensors therefore greater defect resolution.
● Requires special analysis to get estimated corrosion
pit length, depth, and shape information.
● It has sensors to determine if the corrosion is external
or internal but the process is not 100°/0 accurate.
● Higher inspection cost but improved accuracy may
reduce the number of repairs required resulting in
lower overall project costs,
● Battery or data storage limitations may result in
several runs on long sections to get a complete
survey.

Prioritization of Pipelines for Inspection

The prioritization of pipeline inspection is determined by the probability of failure times the impact
of a failure on public safety, the environment, pipeline customers, and pipeline operator
profitability. As pipeline service life increases, the probability of a failure due to corrosion
increases. However, smart pig and other inspections can be used to determine if any corrosion
defects are present that may cause a leak or rupture. After the inspection the risk of the pipeline
having a failure can be reduced if no serious defects are found or all defects that impact integrity are
repaired.

Since corrosion depends upon many variables of which age is only one, the rate of deterioration of
a pipeline can not be determined by age alone. This prioritization method is for rating the pipelines
in the order in which they should be inspected. The frequency of inspection should be set by the
rate of deterioration of the pipeline which can be determined by pipeline operating history.

A idea pipeline prioritization method would have a corrosion, environmental, public safety, leak
econclmic impact, and revenue/customer impact factor. Past inspection history is also used to
determine the need for a new smart pig inspection.

Defect Sizing Accuracy

All smart pig vendors state that the accuracy of the reported metal loss survey data is within a
statistical range. It is important to understand the accuracy of the dimensions of the reported
metal loss defects in order to make repair decisions based upon sound engineering judgment.

41/3
For example a commonly used High Resolution MFL Tool has a depth sizing accuracy that is
within fifteen percent of the nominal pipe wall thickness for generalized corrosion in pipelines
less than 20 inches (508 mm) in diameter. In addition, this smart pig contractor reports that 95’%
of the time, the actual defect dimensions will be within the depth sizing accuracy of fifteen
percent of the nominal pipe wall thickness. The below chart helps in showing the accuracy of the
this tool.

Figuew 1

—
/
/ 1
\ /
/

I
\
Dklml

— Lma bit(- 15%)

\

---- ~ hmt (+15%0)

—
\

—
— — — — —— — —
I 3 4 5 6 8 9

41/4
The actual measured dimensions of eleven defects are shown in a bar chart. The upper and lower
limits of the sizing accuracy around the estimated defect size from the metal loss survey is
graphed as a line. The depth of the corrosion pitting reported in the metal loss survey report
WOU1 d be the mid-point between the two lines on the graph. If the bar is between the two lines,
the actual defect size was within the t 15 sizing precision of the estimated defect size. When the
bar is above or below the two lines, the actual measured depth was outside of the fl 5% sizing
precision. In our example, two defects are outside of the t 15 sizing precision. One defect was
deeper than 15% of the estimated defect depth and one defect was less than 15% of the estimated
defect depth. Typically, most metal loss defects are sized conservatively and therefore are less
than the estimated peak pit depth. In this example, the estimated depth of 82% of the defects
were found to be sized within the t 15°/0sizing precision.

In addition to the sizing accuracy of the reported depth measurement is the variance h the pipe
wall l.hickness. The pipe wall thickness will typically vary by t 12.5’XOof the specified pipe wall
thickness for most small diameter pipe. When the pipe wall thickness is +12.5’?40of the
specified wall thickness at the location of the corrosion pit, the pipe wall is thicker than specified
and not as close to a leak as expected. If the corrosion pit is in wall that is - 12.5% of specified,
then lhe pipe wall is thinner than specified and closer to a leak.

The :~ipe wall variance and smart pig depth sizing accuracy combines to create a possible
+27.5 O/.depth Sizing Unceflainly in the reported metal loss survey results when the specified or
nomi~al pipe wall thickness is used. If the pipeline inventory sheets list the pipe wall as 0.250
inches thick, this is the specified or nominal wall thickness which is typically allowed a tl 2.5°/0
variance per API Standards. Therefore, a 0.250 inch (6.4 mm) thick pipe wall ranges from 0.22
to 0.29 inches (5.6 ro 7.4 mm). The minimum value of 0.22 inches (5.6 mm) should be used in
making conservative repair decisions. Since Advanced MFL Maximum Operating Pressure
(MOP) calculations are only estimates due to tool sizing limitations, a MOP based upon smart
pig d~ta is referred to as the Estimated MOP. A MOP based upon physical examination of the
corrosion pitting damage is the Real MOP.

Minimum Detection Depth - 30% of Nominal Wall Thickness

L ~1

Specified Wall Thickness

/ ~ Nominal Wall Thickness

Figure Number 2

41/5
A cclmmonly used High Resolution MFL tool for pipelines less than 20 inches (508 mm) in
diameter has a defect sizing accuracy is as follows: For defects having a length (L) less than 3t
by 3:, where t is the nominal or specified wall thickness, the minimum detection depth is 0.5t
and the sizing accuracy is fO.2t if the width of the pit is greater than or equal to 2t. For
generalized corrosion pitting, the minimum detection depth is 0.3t with a sizing accuracy of
~0. 1.jt. This smart pig contractor has defined localized corrosion pitting to be less than three
times the nominal pipe wall thickness in length. Generalized corrosion pitting is greater than or
equal to three time the nominal wall thickness in length.

Commonly, a Estimated Repair Factor (ERF) or Pressure Referenced Ratio (PRR) is calculated
which is the MOP of the pipeline divided by the Estimated MOP for individual corrosion pits
detected by the smart pig. A value greater than one indicates that repairs may be required.
Values less than one may not need to be repaired. However, any defect over 50’% of the pipe
wall may need to be recoated depending upon inspection frequency and the rate of corrosion
growth. In addition, the sizing accuracy of the tool and the risk of leaving the defect in the
pipeline needs to be considering in making repair decisions.

Analyzing Smart Pig Data

Each metal loss survey data defect can be analyzed against a static hydraulic model of the pipeline.
The pressure-containing capacity of each defect can be calculated using ANSI/ASME B31 G and a
ERF (Estimated Repair Factor which is the MOP divided by the derated pressure calculated by
ANSI/ASMEB31 G.) computed. “71

The pipeline may be divided into sections of similar elevation characteristics to simply the process.
A Critical ERF for the lowest spot on section(s) can be calculated. The critical point(s) of analysis
can be established by a worse-case where the pipeline is in a static locked-in condition at MOP.
The Critical ERF(s) may be adjusted by 15V0to take into consideration possible tool measurement
errors (The sizing accuracy of advanced MFL tools is * 15°/0of the nominal pipe wall thickness.).

By comparing the critical point(s) in terms of ERF with each individual-feature ERF, a listing of
metal-loss sites exceeding the criteria can be obtained. All defects with a peak depth exceeding
70V0of the pipe wall thickness probably should be investigated regardless of the ERF.

Defects being close to rupture size according to ANSI/ASME B31 G should be repaired if a
probabilistic analysis indicates that these defects may cause a rupture before the next scheduled
smar: pig inspection. If the inspection frequency is five years and the corrosion penetration rate is
less than 10 roils per year (0.25 mm/year) there will be no need to recoat any discovered corrosion
damage to prevent leaks before the next scheduled inspection. Cathodic protection improvements
should be considered for areas where active corrosion exists.

If the corrosion penetration rate is equal to or greater than 10 roils per year (0.25 mm/year), it may
be necessary to recoat some of the corrosion damage that is greater than 50% of the pipe wall in

41/6
order to prevent leaks before the next scheduled inspection in five years, decrease the metal loss
survey inspection time interval, or improve the level of cathodic protection. A probabilistic
analysis study should be performed to determine the most economical method of maintaining
pipeline integrity.

Corrcsion damage found by the smart pig inside a ERW seam or in the HAZ (Heat Affected Zone)
of the ERW seam should be inspected regardless of ERF. In addition, corrosion damage that may
impact the integrity of a girthweld should be inspected regardless of ERF.

Dents found by smart pigs that may contain gouges should be inspected. In addition, any defect in
the pipe wall that appears to be a gouge without a dent will be inspected. If Circumferential crack
defects are found in the girthweld or pipe wall body that may impact pipeline integrity, these
defects should be inspected.

Engineering assumptions being made in this process are that the surge pressures are compensated
for by both the 15’%0adjustment and the 1.39 factor of safety intrinsic to the ANSI/ASME B31 G
calculation.

This analysis is best done in a personal computer spreadsheet. The smart pig vendor can supply the
raw data in a format that can be transfemed into any Commerical computer spreadsheet software.

Estimating Corrosion Rate from Smart Pig Data

Presently, MFL tools have a sizing accuracy of+15’XOof nominal pipe wall thickness for pipelines
less than 20 inches (508 mm) in diameter. A +15% sizing accuracy does not permit accurate
corrosion rate estimates. For example, for quarter inch thick pipe wall a tl 5% sizing accuracy
results in a f33 mil per year (tO.84 mm per year) sizing accuracy in estimated corrosion rate.
Several pipeline operators have reported that advanced MFL tools cannot give reliable enough
corrosion rate data to make repair decisions or set inspection frequencies. A no change in defect
dimensions between MFL inspections may not indicate no growth, but it may indicate that the
corrosion rate is so low that the tool was not able to detect any change in defect size. Ultrasonic
tools are capable of giving more accurate corrosion growth rate information than an advanced MFL
tool.

Metal Loss Tool Inspection Frequency

Inspection frequency should be based upon both internal and external corrosion rates. The
corrosivity of the product transported, data from internal corrosion monitoring facilities, coating
condition, cathodic protection condition, and soil corrosivity should be used to determine metal loss
tool inspection frequencies.

41/7
On cathodic protected pipelines in Great Britain, the corrosion rate has been documented by British
Gas to range from 3.9 to 39.4 roils per year (O.1 to 1 mm/year). ’17] National Bureau of Standards
resea:ch done in the United States indicates that the corrosion penetration rate of unprotected steel
pipe can range from 2.7 to 50.7 roils per year (0.07 to 1.3 mm per year). With a corrosion rate
range this wide it is important to know the corrosion rate of a particular pipeline in order to
properly set the inspection frequency.

Liquid and Natural Gas Pipeline Inspections

A MFL tool gives sufficient information to prevent pipeline ruptures. It is very desirable to prevent
ruptures in a natural gas transmission pipeline. Ruptures of a natural gas pipelines can result in the
release of large gas clouds with the risk of a explosion and fire. Small pin hole leaks in natural gas
pipelines are not a safety issue unless it accumulates inside a confined space where it maybe
ignited. Typically, gas escaping from pinhole leaks is diluted sufficiently to be below explosion
limits. Since natural gas rises above the ground, it may be detected by gas sensors. The main
objective of natural gas pipeline inspections by smart pigs is to prevent ruptures and not leaks.

For hazardous liquid pipelines, ruptures also result in sudden large releases of product. However,
small pin-hole leaks over long periods of time can result in expensive environmental damage.
Escaping liquids from pipelines do not rise above the ground like natural gas where it may be
detecl.ed by sensors. Escaping product may contaminate ground water. Therefore, liquid pipeline
operators desire to prevent both leaks and ruptures. A MFL tool’s sizing accuracy may result in
more pipeline repairs being done to a hazardous liquid pipeline than that of a natural gas pipeline in
order to guarantee that no pin-hole leaks exists.

Developing a Probabilistic Analysis Method

It is desirable to accurately measure and document the actual corrosion pit depth, length, and shape
in orcler to develop a database for comparison with the smart pig metal loss survey database. A
comparison of the two databases will aid in developing a probabilistic analysis system for making
pipeline repair decisions based upon smart pig metal loss survey data. In addition, this information
is useful as feedback to the smart pig contractors so that they can fine tune the accuracy of their
grading system.

Emergency Repairs

Any defect found during the metal loss survey that impacts the MOP of the pipeline should be
immediately physically or the MOP lowered until repairs can be made. The accuracy of
inspected
the tool will be used to determine of a defect requiring immediate corrective action.
the probability
Any defects discovered by the metal loss survey that does not require immediate response will be
repaired as required during a scheduled pipeline rehabilitation program.

41/8
 Third Party Damage Detection

A MFL tool is designed to find corrosion damage and not third party damage in the pipeline. MFL
tools are capable of locating mechanical damage such as dents, mashes, wrinkles, flat spots, and
buckles because of sensor lift off from the pipe or changes in the magnetic properties of the pipe
wall resulting from the mechanical damage. A preventative maintenance program including: aerial
patro k, pipeline markers, one call systems, and public education is the best defense against pipeline
failures due to third party damage. MFL tools are limited in their ability to detect and properly
characterize the seriousness of third party damage. The use of MFL tools will not significantly
reduce failures due to third party damage, however all mechanical damage detected during a metal
loss inspection that may impact pipeline integrity should be inspected.

Internal Corrosion Monitoring

Smart pigs are not sufficiently sensitive or used frequency enough to replace traditional methods of
moni-:oring the internal corrosion rate in the pipeline. If internal corrosion is an issue, weight loss
coupons, and corrosion rate probes must be used to monitor internal corrosion rate. As a rule, all
MFL tools tend not to see internal corrosion darnage if it is less than 30% of the nominal wall
thickness of the pipe. Smart pigs may be very effective in finding corrosion damage resulting from
deficiencies in the existing internal corrosion control program before major corrosion problems
develop.

Smart Pigs and Hydrotesting

At this time. no smart pig can detect all defects that may result in a pipeline failure. Some pipelines
may have defects that can only be found using a hydrotesting program. For some pipeline systems,
smart pigs are sufficient to prove pipeline integrity without the need for any hydrotesting.

Smart Pigs and CIS

CIS (Close Interval Surveys) are a effective method of finding coating damage and sections of the
pipeline not having sufficient levels of cathodic protection between test stations. As a preventative
maintenance tool, it can be used to correct external corrosion hot spot areas before significant
corrosion damage has occurred. Smart pigs are effective at finding areas where active corrosion is
occurring and may find problems missed by CIS due to cathodic protection shielding. Although
smart pigs are more effective at finding corrosion problems than CIS, the use of smart pigs do not
eliminate the need to use CIS to optimize cathodic protection levels on the pipeline system.

41/9
 Conclusion

The accuracy of the metal loss smart pig, the risk of leaving a defect in the pipeline, and the rate of
defect grom~h needs to be considered in making pipeline repairs based upon sound engineering
judgment. Metal loss smart pigs have proven to be a very effective tool in maintaining pipeline
integity.

References

1. A Teitsma and D. E. Well, “Magnetic Flux Leakage and Ultrasonic Pigs for Pipeline
Inspection”, Pi~eline Rehabilitation Seminar Proceedimzs. Cortest Laboratories, Inc.

2. A MenA. Pennington, “Magnetic Flux Leakage For In Line Inspection - Theory and Practice”,
wine Rehabilitation Seminar Proceeding, Cortest Laboratories, Inc., 1991.

3. A. E. Crouch, “In-Line Inspection of Natural Gas Pipelines”, GRI Topical Report GRI-
91/0365, Gas Research Institute (GRI), 1993

4. Government Accounting Office (GAO), “Natural Gas Pipelines - Greater Use of

Instrumented Inspection Technology Can Improve Safety”, GAO Report to Congressional
Committees, GAO/RCED-92-237, 1992.

5. Ken Plaizier, “Which Smart Pig Do I Choose? A Comparison of MFL Technologies From
An Operator’s Viewpoint”, Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Monitoring Conference, 1993

6. Robert P. Otjen, “A Gas Pipelines View of the Use of Smart Pigs”, International Petroleum
Industry inspection Technology II Topical Conference, 1991

7. J. C. Harle, “Corrosion Inspection of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline”, Pi~eline Pi~~in~ and

~ection Technolo~v Conference, 1991.

8. D. L. Atherton, “Magnetic Inspection is Key to Ensuring Safe Pipelines”, Oil & Gas Journal,
August 71989.

9. R. W. E. Shannon and G. A. Adey. “Pipeline Inspection in Europe”, qth European Conference

on Non-Destructive Testing, 1987

10. W. K. Helm, “Use of Magnetic Inspection Pigging Provides Valuable Tool in Pipeline
Maintenance”, Oil and Gas Journal, 1984

11. D. G. Jones, “Uprating Pipelines Based on On-Line Inspection and Fitness for Assessments”,
Pipeline Technolo~v Conference, 1990

12. British Gas, “British Gas High Resolution Inspection Services Technical Data”

41/10
13. Lawrence Jackson, Ernest Shannon, and G. A Adey, ‘bBritish Gas has Seamless Pipe
Inspection Program”, Oil & Gas Journal, September 9, 1985.

14. Elritish Gas, “British Gas On-Line inspection Technical Manual”, Date Unknown

15. Tuboscope Linalog, Tuboscope Linalog Technical Manual”, Date Unknown

16. B. Nestleroth and A. Crouch, “Preview Workshop on MFL Technology for In-Line
Inspection of Transmission Pipelines, Battelle, 1994

17. P. Hopkins, “’The Assessment of Pipeline Defects Detected During Pigging Operators”,
Pipeline Pigg irw and Intem-itv Monitoring Conference, 1990

18. P, Hopkins, “Interpretation of Metal Loss as Repair or Replace During Pipeline

Refurbishment”, European Pipeline Rehabilitation Seminar, 1990.

19. J. L. Cordell, “On-Line Inspection Techniques: What Technology is Available?”, Piueline

Risk Assessment, Rehabilitation and Repair Conference, 1991

20. Ronald C. Robinson, “Computerized Monitoring Enhances Corrosion Detection”, Pipe Line
Industry, March 1992

21. Dr. R. W. E. Shannon, “Revalidation of Operating Pipelines Using Online Inspection”.

British Gas , 1988.

22. R. W. E. Shannon and L. Jackson, “Flux Leakage Testing Applied To Operational Pipelines”,
Mate:ials Evaluation reprint published by British Gas, 1990.

23. R. W. Ernest Shannon and Colin J. Argent, “A Systems Approach to the Quantitative
Condition Monitoring of Pipelines”, British Gas Paper, Date Unknown

24. British Gas, “Code for Carrying Out On Line Inspection of Gas Transmission Systems”,
British Gas Engineering Standard BGC/PS/OL11

25. W. R. Guartney, “Ultrasonic In-Service Inspection”, Pipeline and Gas Journal, March 1991

26. MJ.Kent Muhlbauer. “Pipeline Risk Management Manual”, Gulf Publishing Company

27. i14ethods for Prioritizing Pipeline Maintenance and Rehabilitation, AGA PRC Project RP 3-
910 Final Report, 1990.

28. J. F. Kiefner, R. W. Hyatt, R. J. Eiber, “In-Line Inspection 1- Tools Locate, Measure Dents,
and Metal Loss, Oil and Gas Journal, April 17, 1989

41/1 1
29. R. W. E. Shannon, E. M. N. Fitzgerald, and L. Jackson, “On-Line Inspection of Offshore
Pipelines”, Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Paper 13684, 1985.

30. G. J. Posakony and V. L. Hill, “Assuring the Integrity of Natural Gas Transmission
Pipe] ines”, Gas Research Institute, GRI Topical Report GRI-91 /0366, 1991.

31. David G. Jones, and Glenn Nespeca, “Uprating An In-Service Offshore Pipeline”, ASCE
International Conference on Pipeline Design/ Installation, 1990.

32. R. Norman, T. Steinbauer, R. Eiber. R. Hyatt, and J. Kiefner, “The GRI’s NDE Evaluation
Research and Development Program for Natural Gas Pipelines”, Pipeline Pig~in~ and Inspection
Technology Conference, 1990.

33. John H. Anderson, Jr., Dr. Manohar Singh, and Ron E. Wood, “Greater Use of Instrumented
Inspection Technology can Improve Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Safety”. Pipeline
~ggrw and Intemity Monitorin~ Conference, 1993. (Summary of GAO Report to US
Congress.)

34. A hen A. Pennington and Patrick C. Porter, “High Resolution Pipeline Inspection: What It Is
and What It is Not”, Pi~eline Pimzing and Intem-itv Monitorimz Conference, 1993.

35. Dr. Laurie Jackson, “High -Resolution On-Line Inspection: A Solid Foundation for Pipeline-
Integrity Assessment,”, Pipeline Piggirw and Integrity Monitorimz Conference, 1993.

36. Dr. Philip M. Hoyt, “Topics in the Meaning and Interpretation of Intelligent Pigging
Inspection Data”, Pipeline Pigging and Intemity Monitoring Conference, 1993.

37. Charles E. Maser, “Operational Considerations for an Intelligent-Pig Inspection and Repair
Proglam”, Piueline Pig ~irw and Intemitv Monitoring Conference, 1993.

38. P. J. Brown,”1 O Years’ of Intelligent Pigging: An Operator’s View”, Pi~eline Pimzirw and
~rity Monitorirw Conference, 1990

39. A. A. Bennington, “Monitoring Physical Pipeline Conditions Accurately with ILI

Technology”, Pipeline Pigg in~ and Intewitv Monitoriruz Conference, 1990

40. H. Goedecke, “Corrosion Surveys with the Ultrascan Pig”, Pi~eline Pigging and Intem-itv
Monitorimz Conference, 1990

41. P, M. Maltby and J. C. Hamilton, “An Ultrasonic Pipeline Inspection System”, Pipeline
~ng and Integritv Monitorirw Conference, 1990

42. Il. Storey and P Moss, “Interpretation of Intelligent Pig Survey Data”, Pipeline Pigging and
~rity Monitorin~ Conference, 1990

41/12
43. J. Bruce Nestleroth, Bruce B. Lindsay, and Richard J. Davis, “Magnetic Leakage Signal
Analysis for Metal-Loss Defect Characterization”, International Petroleum Industry Irmection
Technology II Topical Conference, 1991.

44. Albert Teitsma, “Qualitative Pipeline Inspection by Ultrasonic and Magnetic-Flux Pigs”,
Proc~edings of the 1994 API Pipeline Conference, 1994.

45. Albert Teitsma, “Pipeline Inspection by Intelligent High Resolution and Conventional
Magnetic Flux Leakage Pigs, International Conference on Pipeline Reliability, 1992.

46. Dr. L. Jackson, “High-Resolution on Line Inspection - A Solid Foundation for Pipeline
Integ :ity Assessment, International Conference on Pipeline Reliability, 1992.

47. h4. Roche and J. P. Samaran, “The Experience of Elf Aquitaine with Intelligent Pigs”,
International Conference on Pipeline Reliability, 1992.

48. Mike Goodson and Phil Maltby, TDW Pipeline Surveys, Fax on Flawsonic Sizing Accuracy
Issue:;, 1995.

49. Gary Zeller, Tuboscope Pipeline Services, Fax on Tuboscope Plus Conventional Sizing
Accuracy Issues, 1995.

50. Jim Burris and Harvey Futrell, Pipetronix, Fax on Ultrascan Sizing Accuracy Issues, 1995.

51. API Specification 5L, API, 1988

52. AS ME B3 1.8-1992, Aprendix L, Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipe,

1992,

41/13