2009 Pipeline Pigging & Integrity Management Courses, Conference, Exhibition

Conference Program

Provisional program – 9 November, 2008

This program is subject to change without notice

Wednesday 11 February, 2009
8.00		Registration
8.30		Brushes for pipeline cleaning by Doug Batzel, Galaxy Brushes, Moosic, PA, USA
		This paper contrasts the different types of brushes used in utility pipeline pigging, and in ILI on MFL pigs. The various brush constructions will be presented along with their advantages and disadvantages. While there are many pig designs, in the end it is the brush that produces the desired result, a clean and inspectable pipeline. Thus, understanding how brushes work and their relative effectiveness is important, particularly in treating black powder, MIC, and pipeline pits.
9.05		Determining an accurate pipeline profile prior to rehabilitation by Otto Ballantijn, Reduct, Schelle, Belgium
		There are essentially three efficient moments in the lifetime of a pipe to determine its exact XYZ location: at initial installation, during regular maintenance, and when it is being rehabilitated. Particularly during rehabilitation projects, determining the XYZ location of a pipe adds significant value because usually old pipes are rehabilitated for which no reliable digital XY data exists, not to mention accurate depth and/or inclination information. If pipeline mapping can be done efficiently and at a low incremental cost, the threshold to upgrade the GIS platform is very low for the pipeline owner/operator. Furthermore, it will benefit the uniformity of the handover procedure. From a contractor’s perspective, determining and accurate segment profile pre-rehabilitation may avoid costly faulty installations. This paper discusses Gyroscopic mapping tools that provide a practical and efficient solution. Starting from ID 40mm, the systems are deployable in most pipeline rehabilitation projects.
9.40		Factors affecting the design and selection of pigging tools for multi-diameter pipelines by Peter Fretwell, Pipeline Engineering, Catterick, UK
10.15		Coffee, exhibition
11.00		Speed-reducing pig by Eric Freeman, Robert Strong, and Colin Drysdale, TD Williamson, Houston, TX, USA
		This paper outlines performance characteristics and field testing results for a new Speed Reducing Pig which utilizes high bypass flow through the pig body to reduce travel speed while incorporating an inertia/flow actuated valve to minimize stalling and surging. Many common cleaning elements can be installed on the pig, while the high bypass flow improves the effectiveness of cleaning operations by suspending large amounts of debris in the flow well out in front of the pig. The tool provides highly efficient maintenance pigging without the need to reduce product flow rates.
11.35		Design and contruction of a 42-in liquid pipeline batch pig facility by Robert Kratsch, Enbridge, Edmonton, AB, Canada
12.10		A solution for pipelines previously considered unpiggable: a North American pipeline operator’s experience (speaker to be confirmed), GE – PII, Cramlingon, UK
		Almost 30% of the world’s oil and gas transmission pipelines are not suitable for ILI tools. In fact many of these lines were built before intelligent pigs were invented. This is an opportunity to combine experience of pipeline inspection with the requirement of pipeline operating companies to develop technologies to inspect these challenging pipelines. One example of this cooperation arose in 2007, when a North American pipeline operator needed to conduct metal-loss inspections of 13 natural gas pipelines in the US. This paper gives an insight into the project’s many challenges in terms of pipeline configuration, cleanliness, regulatory and internal deadlines, and inspection.
12.45		Lunch, exhibition
1.45		In line inspection of an unpiggable multi-diameter crude oil pipeline in Cook Inlet by Trevor Buron, Tom Liverance and Jeff Gries, Coffman Engineers, Anchorage, AK, USA, Pete LaPella, Chevron, Anchorage, AK, USA, and John Mohr, A Hak Industrial Services, Houston, TX, USA
		Increased aversion to risk is forcing many owners to reassess pipelines previously considered impossible to inspect. This paper discusses the process utilized and challenges overcome to successfully inspect a pipeline from the initial planning stages through cleaning and finally to the in-line ultrasonic wall thickness inspection. It illustrates that patience and improving technology allow for detailed metal loss data acquisition in pipelines deemed un-inspectible only a few years ago.
		The project involved integrity assessment of a 40-year old 6-inch subsea oil pipeline in the Cook Inlet of Alaska. Hydrotesting and in-line caliper surveys had were utilized to establish baseline assessments. The project offered many challenges that had deterred previous attempts at in-line-inspection: mulitple internal diameters, ownership changes that led to inadequate engineering records, sections constructed of ultra heavy wall pipe, and heavy wax deposits. Limited maintenance pigging led to a difficult cleaning process prior to performing the ILI survey. A project requirement was to have no production downtime, thus surveys were all conducted in the normal crude production stream.
2.20		LDC compliance: baseline surveys and a management framework by Todd Porter, Geospatial Corp, Houston, TX, USA
		Pipeline Integrity Management for gas distribution pipelines will soon become an extension of the PHMSA-DOT regulations. The threats are similar but the consequences high due to population density of end users. Therefore, as was required through the National Pipeline Mapping System, the need for accurate location of the lines and a management framework will be required. This presentation will cover technologies such as ILI mapping tools; ground penetrating radar (GPR), oblique aerial imagery, and horizontal directional drilling.
2.55		Coffee, exhibition
3.30		Evaluating damage to onshore and offshore pipelines using ILI data by Dr Chris Alexander, Stress Engineering Services, Oran Tarlton, Williams Midstream, and Arthur Prayther, Rosen Inspection, Houston, TX, USA
		The paper outlines a systematic approach for evaluating damaged pipeline using ILI data. The authors offer a case study that used data collected during an ILI run of a damaged subsea pipeline. The assessment included development of finite element models using geometric ILI data. The assessment integrated actual pressure history data in conjunction with a cumulative damage assessment model to determine the remaining life of the selected anomalies. It also utilized prior full-scale experimental data to confirm the accuracy of the models.
4.05		Integrating MFL and ultrasonics: a project for BP Alaska (title to be confirmed) by Thomas Beuker, Rosen, Houston, TX, USA
		High-resolution MFL and UTWM ILI tools have been around for a long time. Most of us understand that the technologies have complementary strengths and weaknesses in detection and sizing capabilities. For example, MFL offers better detection capabilities for small pitting anomalies while UTWM is better at measuring general wall thinning. The inherent imperfections of the approaches can sometimes leave you guessing about what might be missing from your data.
		BP Alaska and Rosen partnered in 2008 to identify a candidate pipeline to test a combination MFL-UTWM tool, RoCorr-UT. This paper discusses the successful run of the tool through BP’s 28-mile crude line from Endicott Island to Pump Station #1.
4.40		A methodology for the prediction of pipeline failure frequency due to external interference by C Lyons, Pipeline Integrity Engineers, Newcastle, UK, Dr Jane V Haswell, Pipeline Integrity Engineers, Newcastle, UK, Dr Phil Hopkins, Penspen Integrity, Newcastle, UK, R Ellis, Shell UK, Stanlow, UK, and N Jackson, National Grid, Warwick, UK
		The United Kingdom Onshore Pipeline Operators Association (UKOPA) is developing supplements to the UK pipeline codes BSI PD 8010 and IGE/TD/1. These supplements will provide a standardized approach for the application of quantified risk assessment to pipelines. UKOPA has evaluated and recommended a methodology: this paper covers the background to, and justification of, this methodology. The most relevant damage mechanism in pipeline failure is external interference. Interference produces a gouge, dent or a dent-gouge. This paper describes the fracture mechanics model used to predict the failure probability of pipelines containing dent and gouge damage. It contains predictions of failure frequency obtained using the gas industry failure frequency prediction methodologies FFREQ and operational failure data from the UKOPA fault database. The failure model and prediction methodology are explained, and typical results are presented and discussed.
5.15		Reception in exhibition area
Thursday 12 February, 2009
8.30		Self-excited eddy current in-line inspection technique for the detection of SCC by Grant Coleman, BJ Systems & Services, and Richard Kania, TransCanada PipeLines, Calgary, AB, Canada
		Self Excited Eddy Currents (SEEC) present a unique and novel method for internal in-line inspection of natural gas transmission pipelines for the presence of features aligned with the main pipe axis such as Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC). This paper outlines the theory, methodology and basic design principles of an SEEC based tool. Initial field trials and results are presented
9.05		Multiple approach to INTEGRITY ManAGEMENT OF AGING PIPELINES USING the newest in-line inspection technologies by Dr V Kanaykin, Dr B Patramanskiy, and Dr V Loskutov, Spetsneftegaz, Moscow, Russia
9.40		Global ILI contract development by Stephen Gower, BP, Sunbury, UK
10.15		Coffee, exhibition
10.45		More Legal issues in pipeline integrity programs: an update by Chris Paul, Joyce, Paul, Tulsa, OK, USA
		The presentation will review the legal issues and the demands that pipeline integrity programs place upon operators including data integration and records retention, and a discussion of how these issues and demands may result in misinterpretation and misuse of data and documents. The bases for management and company exposure will be discussed, as will the criteria used by the government for determining whether or not information within the knowledge of the company might result not only in simple liability, but also the possibility of criminal exposure. The presentation will review solutions to the legal issues, including how to deal with improved ILI tools which provide tremendous amounts of data that must be captured and integrated with other information involving the operator’s pipeline systems.
11.20		Ethanol transportation: status of research and integrity management by Patrick Vieth, and John Beavers, CC Technologies, Dublin, OH, USA
		The pipeline industry is undertaking considerable research to determine the best approach to manage the potential for internal stress corrosion cracking (SCC) to occur while transporting ethanol and fuel grade ethanol. The parameters that affect the potential for SCC (e.g., oxygen, water, etc.) are understood, and the research is now focused on methods to reduce the likelihood of SCC. The current state of the research and testing will be presented
11.55		Developments in reliability-based corrosion management and significance of ILI by Mark Stephens, C-FER Technologies, Edmonton, AB, Canada, and Albert van Roodselaar, Chevron, Houston, TX, USA
		This paper provides an overview of an ongoing research project, sponsored by the Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI), which is developing a reliability-based process that will form the basis for an industry-accepted approach to assessing and managing pipeline integrity with respect to corrosion. It also discusses the sources of uncertainty inherent in the in-line inspection process and their significance in the context of corrosion reliability analysis.
12.30		Lunch and exhibition
1.30		Diligent statistical analysis of real ILI data: implications, inferences and lessons learned by Slava Timashev, Russian Academy of Sciences, Ekaterinburg, Russia
		Real ILI data was analyzed with a sophisticated and rigorous algorithm developed using Monte Carlo simulation. The data was gathered from ILI runs on three continents. The research results point the way toward a new generation of ILI and DA/Verification tools combining sophisticated statistical analysis of the data obtained using these tools and suggested improvements to API RP1163. Lessons learned include: Role of false negatives and false positives in determining probability of failure How to assess variances of specific ILI tools and verification instruments The Regression line and the Unity curve Assessment of the immeasurable defect sizes Influence of the number and location of verification points on accuracy of defect size assessments How to use these assessments when predicting probability of exceedance, corrosion rates, performing RPR and fitness for purpose analysis, and planning the next repair or ILI tool run
2.05		Integrity first: voluntary performance reporting in a goal-oriented regulatory environment by Ziad A Saad, Kim J McCaig, and Brenda Kenny, CEPA, Calgary, AB, Canada
		In 2007, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) published a report titled ‘Integrity First’. This document strives to achieve two goals: (1) for the pipeline industry to communicate performance with its stakeholders and regulators in the areas of pipeline integrity, health and safety, and environmental performance; and (2) to define performance success quantitatively with appropriate metrics and statistics. This paper will focus on discussing the second goal – most specifically, on how voluntary reporting of performance metrics is a necessity in an era of goal-based regulations.
2.40		Dealing with uncertainty in pipeline integrity and rehab assessment by Rafael G Mora, Alan Murray, Joe Paviglianiti, and Sara Abdollahi, NEB, Calgary, AB, Canada
		Many pipeline standards and regulations refer to fitness for service assessments without providing much detail as to their expected extent or proof of adequacy. This paper discusses measurement, modeling, and interpretation errors that could affect the validity of integrity assessments. A case study identifies the uncertainty effects of in-line inspection accuracies during the criticality assessment of reported metal loss anomalies that could fail by leak or rupture. Technical approaches are proposed on how to deal with uncertainty in the development of integrity verification and rehabilitation programs when using in line inspection data.
3.15		Coffee
3.35		Application of the ECDA process for cased pipe by Alan Eastman, Mears Group, San Ramon, CA, USA
4.10		Assessing pipeline integrity using fracture mechanics and currently available inspection tools, by Dr Kimberly Cameron and Dr Alfred Pettinger, Exponent Failure Analysis, Menlo Park, CA, USA
		Some pipeline systems are subjected not only to internal pressure but also to significant external loads. These loads can well exceed the axial pressure load and present a much greater risk for circumferential welds and cracks. This paper addresses the appropriate fracture mechanics needed to assess circumferential cracks under axial loads and summarizes current inspection capabilities for circumferential defects. Specific examples from a pipeline buried in an active landslide region are given as well as a general review of the available inspection tools and appropriate fracture mechanics.
4.45		End of conference