M

aintenance and servicing are terms often associated with relatively

complex mechanical systems. Most people, for example, understand
the importance of having a car serviced at regular intervals to ensure
any wearing parts can be replaced before they actually fail and possibly
result in additional damage and expense.
Pipeline systems are mechanically relatively simple and the need for regular
maintenance may seem less important; however, carrying out regular pipeline
maintenance activities can form an extremely effective part of a pipeline integrity
management system, both for ageing assets and for more recently installed pipelines.
Typically, these maintenance activities may be intended to manage internal or
external corrosion issues, to improve flow conditions and reduce potential process
CASE STUDIES IN
PRE-INSPECTION
Lucy Lingard and Gavin West, Project Managers at
PipeLine Engineering & Supply Co. Ltd, UK, present
effective pipeline pigging.
CLEANING
JULY 2012 | Reprinted from World Pipelines
upsets within the wider production system, or to facilitate
periodic inspections of all or part of the pipeline system.
Pigging services for pipeline maintenance
While some external inspection and maintenance activities
are carried out on pipelines, the primary integrity concern for
a pipeline system generally relates to the transported fluid
and therefore requires internal intervention into the pipeline.
Pipeline pigging therefore forms a key part of many pipeline
maintenance schedules, both during routine operations and as
part of more complex interventions such as inspections or local
repairs.
For pigging to be an effective form of pipeline maintenance
it is also important that the pigging tools are suitably designed
to address the expected issues within each individual pipeline.
There are many instances where production issues have been
caused or aggravated by an incorrect or inappropriate pigging
strategy. For example, insufficient bypass capacity when pigging
lines with water dropout may result in a large slug of water
being received with the potential to swamp the slug catcher
or separator causing a production trip. In waxy pipelines,
insufficient bypass can, in the worst case, result in a wax candle
building up in front of the pig and plugging the line.
In other cases, poorly designed pigs, or an inappropriate
pigging schedule, may mean that no real benefit is obtained
from regular pigging. While inefficient pigging is not necessarily
detrimental to the overall condition of the pipeline, it can
provide false confidence in the line condition and may lead to
unexpected operational upsets or delays. For example, when
planning an inspection campaign, a regularly pigged line may
suddenly be found to require intensive cleaning to allow an
inspection tool to obtain full line data, resulting in delays to the
inspection schedule and an increase in the overall cost of the
inspection campaign.
Maintenance of the pigging tools themselves should
also be considered within the pigging strategy, as poorly
maintained pigs will also loose efficiency over time. Sealing
and scraper discs that contact the pipe walls will wear, and
enhanced cleaning components such as brushes will degrade
(Figures 1 and 2). Regular inspection of the pigging tools can
also increase the identification of distinctive wear or damage
patterns, which may be indicative of restrictions or obstructions
within the pipeline. In the worst case, poorly maintained pigging
tools may eventually fail in service, leaving debris in the line.
Changes to the pipeline process conditions or flowrates
may also reduce the efficiency of previously suitable cleaning
pigs and in the worst case, may result in process upsets or a
stuck pig scenario. It is therefore sensible to review cleaning pig
designs and pigging frequencies regularly to ensure that routine
pipeline maintenance programmes remain effective.
Pigging for inspection and intervention
Periodic pipeline inspection and intervention activities also
frequently require pigging support, either in the form of an
intensive pipeline cleaning programme, or through the design
of specific tools for pipeline de-oiling or isolation. While
some pre-inspection pipeline cleaning programmes can
be carried out using routine cleaning pigs, on an enhanced
pigging schedule, it is often necessary to provide a series of
specific pigs for pre-inspection cleaning; either to reduce the
logistical difficulties associated with retrieving the pigs and
returning them to the launch point in the required timescale,
or to remove larger quantities of wax and debris from the line
with each pig and reduce the overall duration of the pigging
programme (Figure 3).
Figure 1. Pigging tool showing worn discs.
Figure 2. Pigging tool refurbished with new discs.
Figure 3. High levels of wax retrieved during progressive pipeline
cleaning.
Reprinted from World Pipelines | JULY 2012
During a recent North Sea pipeline cleaning
campaign carried out by the pipeline services division of
Pipeline Engineering & Supply Co. Ltd (PE), it was found that the
specifically designed pre-inspection cleaning pigs were capable
of removing more than double the wax volume per pig than was
being achieved with the routine cleaning pigs normally used to
remove wax from the target pipeline (Figure 4). Relying on the
routine cleaning pigs alone to condition the line for inspection
would therefore have been likely to result in either a prolonged
cleaning campaign or a failed inspection, either of which would
have been extremely costly to the pipeline operator.
Effective pigging requires a good understanding of the line
conditions and variables such as temperature, flowrates, pipeline
diameter. Understanding the variables enables companies to
design and deploy pipeline pigs that will provide the best
fit for the required pigging operation. It is also important for
service companies to work with operators to develop pigging
programmes specific to individual pipeline requirements.
Determining how clean a pipeline is following
pigging
Carrying out an inspection run is a critical process in assessing
the condition of a pipeline and it is important therefore to
obtain meaningful and reliable information/data from the
running of an inspection tool. Prior to running an inspection
tool, it is to be anticipated that, following the running of a
series of cleaning pigs, the line will be sufficiently clean for
inspection, but how can one be sure that this will be the case?
PE recognised that a specialist pigging tool capable of
measuring residual debris deposits in a pipeline would benefit
pipeline inspection and they were actively encouraged by some
of the worlds leading oil and gas operators to develop such a
tool. Subsequently, the company started a research programme
into different technologies to assess the cleanliness of pipelines
that could be built into a pigging tool, and in particular the use
of Hall Effect-based sensor technology, configured to detect
proximity to the pipewall. Based on this research, PE developed
the PECAT pipeline cleanliness assessment tool, which is now
available as a service when assessing the internal condition
of pipelines either before the use of an inspection tool, or to
assess the pipeline cleaning results from a progressive pigging
programme.
Pipeline pigging services
PE has extensive experience in the design, manufacture and
operation of pigging tools and provides pipeline pigging
services across a range of pigging activities, pipeline inspection
campaigns and scheduled and non-scheduled pipeline
interventions. The case studies below illustrate ways in which
pigging can form a key part of the regular maintenance and
servicing of pipelines.
Case study 1 Marathon Oil UK pre-inspection
cleaning
Marathon Oil operates the Brae Field in the North Sea, including
an 18 in. pipeline system exporting gas condensate from
East Brae and Brae Bravo to Brae Alpha, which is regularly pigged
to control wax build up. PE has supported the routine pigging
of this pipeline system for some time, carrying out regular
inspection and refurbishment of the cleaning pigs to facilitate
an effective maintenance pigging programme, incorporating
alternate pig launches from the exporting platforms. Data from
the pigging programme has been periodically fed back into
the design of the tools, and Marathon Oil review the pigging
schedule on a regular basis.
Figure 4. Chart showing wax volume removal and measurement of
residual wax in the line.
Figure 5. Debris build-up recorded by PECAT interface.
Figure 6. Pig retrieved from pipeline.
JULY 2012 | Reprinted from World Pipelines
When planning an inline inspection of the pipeline
sections from Brae Bravo to Brae Alpha, Marathon Oil
realised that additional pig runs would be required to give
the inspection tool the best opportunity of recording full
inspection data and developed a revised pigging schedule
based around these requirements. The intensity of the revised
pigging schedule required the pigs to be transferred directly
between the platforms with little opportunity for inspection
or refurbishment of the tools. It was also recognised that
successful completion of the programme would involve the
co-ordination of a number of functions and facilities on board
both platforms, including operations personnel, deck crew, lab
technicians, material controllers and third party contractors.
PE was able to increase its support to Marathon Oil for this
campaign by mobilising offshore pigging co-ordinators. The
company was tasked with reporting on the condition of each
pig received and the returned wax volumes, inspecting and
refurbishing the pigging tools as required, co-ordinating the
transfer of the pigging tools between platforms and reporting
on progress of the operation. It was also able to service
platform pigging equipment to improve the efficiency of future
operations (Figures 6 and 7).
Data from the pre-inspection cleaning campaign was fed
into both the Marathon Oil pigging programme to assess the
line cleanliness prior to launching the inline inspection
tool and PE review to confirm that the most effective
cleaning pig design is employed, thus ensuring the
18 in. condensate line continues to be pigged safely and
effectively.
Case study 2 Centrica Mallard cleaning and
inspection
The Mallard pipeline system forms part
of the Greater Kittiwake Area operated by
Centrica Energy Upstream (CEU) in the Central North Sea.
It produces oil from a single subsea wellhead back to
the Kittiwake platform via an 8 in. pipeline. There are
also two further subsea seawater injection wells fed via
a parallel 8 in. pipeline. The two pipelines are connected
by means of a pigging loop that effectively bypasses the
Mallard template.
As part of the integrity assessment of the system,
there was a requirement to carry out an intelligent internal
inspection of both pipelines. PE was contracted by CEU to
carry out this work.
Prior to this inspection requirement, the pipelines had
only been pigged during pre-commissioning and as such, a
substantial progressive cleaning programme needed to be
developed. The programme detailed the types and running
sequence of the cleaning pigs to gradually build up the
aggressiveness of the pigs, so that the anticipated levels of
wax/scale could be removed successfully without causing
any potential blockages to the system (Figure 8).
On completion of the cleaning programme, the
inline inspection tool was run and the resulting data
confirmed that the cleaning pigs had functioned to their
specification, removing sufficient debris within the system
to allow a detailed and successful inspection run.
PE provided a full pigging team and a project manager
acting as the client representative offshore assisting CEU
and the Kittiwake platform duty holder with the oversight
of the whole programme. The company also supplied
and operated pig monitoring equipment so that constant
monitoring of the pigs passage through the system could
be maintained. The pigging team were responsible for
loading and removing each of the pigs, evaluating their
performance and deciding on the next pig to be run.
The data recovered by an inline inspection tool was
used as part of a formal assessment of the integrity
condition of the two pipelines.
Conclusion
As highlighted by these case studies, providing appropriate
cleaning pigs for a pipeline is essential if effective
pigging is to be achieved. Also, if the success of a pigging
campaign can be measured, not just in terms of quantity
of debris removed from a line, but also in terms of
residual debris left in the line, through the use of tools
such as PECAT

, the whole process is improved and both

contractor and operator can be more confident that
meaningful data is likely to be captured if intelligent tools
are to be deployed.
Figure 7. Pig refurbished onsite including replacement of worn
discs.
Figure 8. Studded cup pig for aggressive cleaning attached to a
towing pig.
Reprinted from World Pipelines | JULY 2012