Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
http://www.lrenergy.org/Asset_Management/Pipeline_Integrity_Management.aspx (30
January 2014)
PIPELINE
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).
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
http://www.technip.com/sites/default/files/technip/publications/attachments/Flexible_pipe_April_2013_Web.pdf
diunduh tanggal 29 Januari 2014