SPE 25582

Evaluation of Pipeline Integrity by On-line Inspection (Revised version)

F. HERAIBA * ZAKUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
*SPE Member

Copyright 1993, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc,

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil Technical Conference & Exhibition held in Bahrain, 3-6 April 1993.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers. or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT These facilities are connected by huge pipeline

network cons i st ing of 177 1ines. The wa n th ickness
Advanced On-line inspection tools coupled with of these pipeline was selected to satisfy a design
reliable interpretation of inspection data and factor of 72% SMYS; maximum anticipated design
adequate reporting formats are required to evaluate pressure and corros ion a llowance which varies
the structural integrity of the pipeline. This according to the nature of flu id flowing in each
evaluation is a vital requirement for pipeline line.
operators in order to define necessary preventive
measures and repairs required to avoid line rupture The most important pipeline of this network is the
or leakage. Main Oil Line connecting ZAKUM Central Complex to
lIRKU onshore processing terminal. This line is 42 H
H
ZADCO is operating a large pipeline network (1067 mm) diameter, of 0.562 (l4.27 mm) wall
transferring crude oil, gas and injection water thickness and extends for about 60 km length. The
under a wide range of operating conditions. 1ine had been insta lled in December 1979 and was
filled by sea water treated with biocide, corrosion
In order to evaluate the integrity of this network, inhibitor and oxygen scavenger. It was assumed that
lADCO had conducted several surveys using different this treatment would provide sufficient protection
types of inspection tools. for more than one year.

This paper presents an operator's point of view The sea water was renewed in July 1981 and regular
about the capabilities and limitations of the samples were collected which indicated that 10 to 70
different tools and the reporting formats submitted Sulphate Reducing Bacteria(SRB) colonies per
from inspection contractors. milliliter were found in the water.

The paper provides recommendation about methodology Consequently higher dosage of biocide was added to
for selecting the most appropriate tool for a renewed water. The water was finally displaced by
specific job. crude oi 1 when product ion started from Upper lAKUM
Field on 23rd December 1982.
INTRODUCTION
Pipeline pigging was adopted as routine cleaning
lADCO operates three offshore fields located in the operation since March 1983. The frequency of pigging
ARABIAN GULF Offshore ABU DHABI. The facilities in varied from once per month to four times per month
these fields compromise wellhead platforms. and this arrangement was interrupted occasionally
separation satellites and Central Complexes. for durat ions of about three months due to leak ing
valves at either the pig launcher or receiver.
2 EVALUATION OF PIPELINE INTEGRITY BY ON-LINE INSPECTION
On July 1985, UMM AL-DALKH (UA) field started
product ion and its crude 0 i 1 was pumped to ZIRKU
through the 42" ZAKUM line. This crude oil was
associated with formation water since the early
stage of production. Since the production rate of
UA field represented only small portion of the mixed
stream flowing in the 42" line; the water content in
the crude mixture reaching ZIRKU varied from less
than 0.1% to a maximum of 0.3%. However slugs of
water were always received in front of each pigging
operation indicating that the major part of the
water separated in the line due to low velocity. The
water accumulated at the lower sections of the line
and was removed only when the line was pigged.
Starting from 1987, samples of debris were collected
from the slugs of water. The analysis of ' the debris
indicated the presence of corrosion products. In
addition, the inspection of one 42" isolation valve
installed upstream the reCe1Vlng trap revealed
pitting corrosion upto 2 mm in depth at the 6
O'clock position of both sides of the valve's ball.
Due to the corrosion findings; ZADCO decided to
conduct corrosion survey for the Main Oil Line
using in-line inspection tool (intelligent pig).
The selection of the most appropriate inspection
too 1 was a difficu 1t task due to lack of object ive
informat ion which demonstrate the rea 1 capabi 1ities
and limitations of the available tools. Consequently
it took a lmost about two years during which ZADCO
conducted market survey and communicated with
severa 1 pipe 1ine operators whom accepted to adv ise
their personal experiences informally.
EFFECT OF PIPELINE CONDITIONS ON
PERFORMANCE OF INSPECTION TOOLS
Most of the pipelines represent a very difficult
env ironment for any inspect ion too 1. Th is i s
explained by the fact that the inspection tool moves
at high speed passing through bends, girth welds,
solid particulates, and wax deposits. Although some
of these contaminants can be removed by running
brush pigs; it is impossible to guarantee the degree
of internal cleanliness of the line. While moving in
these conditions, the tool should keep in contact
with or in close proximity to the internal surface
of a pipe 1i ne to ensure fu 11 c i rcumferent ia1
coverage.
Any inspection job should be planned with this in
mind and the selected tool should be able to
accommodate the expected internal conditions of the
pipeline.
SPE 25582
TYPES AND PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION FOR
INSPECTION TOOLS
Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) inspection technology
was introduced to the market in 1965 to provide cost
effective alternative to the hydrostatic testing
,required to evaluate the pipeline integrity while
the line is in service.
The recent development of on-board scann i ng sensors
and micro processor technology resulted in highly
sophisticated and more powerful inspection systems.
These include advanced MFL tools and tools based on
Ultrasonic Technology.
The basic principle of both systems is simple. The
difficulty is how to design a vehicle to suit the
difficult environment inside the pipeline.
1). MAGNETIC FLUX LEAKAGE (MFL) TOOLS
The MFL tool uses the principle of magnetic flux
leakage to detect defects and anomalies in the pipe
wall.
A magnet izing system induces a saturated magnet ic
fie ld in the pipewa 11. Anoma 1ies in the pipe wa 11
divert the magnetic field outside the boundaries of
the pipe wall at the location of the anomaly and
this phenomenon is called "flux leakage" and is
illustrated in Figure 1.
The change in the magnetic field induces a signal
which is detected by sensors mounted between the
magnetizing poles. The signals are electronically
processed, recorded and reproduced in a different
reporting formats.
Different MFL tools are currently available in the
market. Some of these tools belong to what is called
first generation and advanced types belong to second
generation.
The performance of inspection tool depends on
several factors which include but not limited to the
following:-
1. The magnetizing system should provide sufficient
amount of magnetic driving force to completely
saturate the pipe wall. If a pipe wall is not
fully saturated. the magnetic field will not
"leak" even at a thinned section and hence some
defects may not be detected.
SPE 25582 F. HERAIBA
The limited magnetic strength of some tools is
the reason why they can not be used to inspect
heavy pipe walls. Advanced MFL tools use special
types of extremely strong magnets to achieve full
magnetic saturation for the inspected pipeline.
2. The sensors assembly should provide complete
circumferential coverage of the pipe wall even at
severe dynamic and environmental conditions which
prevail while running the tool in the pipeline.
The first generation of magnetic flux tools used
a few number of large sensors arranged in a
single row located between the magnets. This
design may cause the sensors to miss small size
defects and hence degrade the quality of
inspection specially at irregular contours which
characterize some of the pipeline defects. This
a lso may exp la in why the old MFL tools can not
detect defects in girth welds.
Second generation MFL tools use a primary sensor
array having perhaps ten times the number of sensors
installed in first generation tools. This primary
array of sensors works in conjunction with a similar
secondary array to distinguish between internal and
externa 1 defects. A 12" too 1 of second generat ion
may have as many as 192 or more sensing channels to
achieve axial and circumferential scanning pitch of
few millimeters, providing means to locate and size
small metal loss even within the welds.
3. The inspection data should be processed and
presented to the pipeline operator in a way that
fully satisfies his needs.
As a primary objective, the reported data should
locate accurately all defects of prescribed
significance and provide their dimensions with
special emphasis to the depth of metal loss.
Complementary analytical techniques may be used
to qualify the fitness of the pipeline, using any
of the established codes and standards.
Ultrasonic In-line Inspection Tools
The principle of ultrasonic inspection depends on
generating a short compression wave of sound at
frequencies much higher than audible range.
The pulse is transmitted to the interior pipe wall
where most of it is reflected towards the source. A
portion of the signal is transmitted across the pipe
wa 11 to the externa 1 side and port ion of th isis
reflected back towards the source.
3
The same transducer that emits the pulse can also
detect the reflected pulses. The time elapsed from
receiving the interior reflection and receiving the
exterior reflection provides a direct measure of the
wa 11 thickness.
The greatest advantage of an ultrasonic inspection
too 1 is its abi 1ity to produce a quantified
measurement of pipe wall thickness.
However the too 1 measures the rema 10 1 ng wa 11
thickness at discrete points in a closely spaced
grid around the circumference allover the pipe
length. The discrete measurement principle produces
measurements at discrete locations and hence the
resolution depends on grid size. Small defects
require very small grid spacing and hence large
number of sensors are required to detect them.
A draw back of the ultrasonic tool is that the sound
wave should travel through homogeneous liquid; hence
a continuous liquid coupling is required between the
transducers and the pipe wall. Any impurities such
as gas bubbles, debris, corrosion products,
wax ... etc will drastically affect the amount and
shape of the reflected echo and hence wi 11
deteriorate the quality of the inspection.
In addit ion to the above the transducers must be
rna inta ined conforming to the surface of the pipe
wall to ensure that both the pulse and its reflected
echo will always be perpindular to the pipe wall.
Rough surfaces of irregular shape and contour will
tend to scatter the ultrasonic signal and hence may
produce false echo.
EXPERIENCE OF OTHER PIPELINE
OPERATORS
Our market survey for the performance of different
inspection systems included the reviewal of the few
published papers covering user's experience with one
or more systems(l,2,3,4&5). Private contacts with
some operators also provided valuable information.
This survey indicated the following:-
1. Natural Gas Pipeline Company of USA started
using MFL tools since 1968. Their inspection
revealed several locations that required
repa i rs due to disbonded coat ing and externa 1
corrosion. Traverse crack caused by a dent was
located and replaced.
4 EVALUATION OF PIPELINE INTEGRITY BY ON-LINE INSPECTION
They found internal and external corrosion
ranging from 150 to 250 mills (3.81 to 6.38
mm) .
2. NOVA experienced three failures due to corrosion
in a 20w (508 mm) gas line. Conventional MFL tool
was run in 1984. It identified the location of a
large number of corrosion defects. However the
corrosion depths in most locations were
questionable and large number of exacavations
were required to evaluate the significance of the
defects. Hence a decision was made to run
advanced MFL too 1 of second generat ion to
accurately describe the corrosion defects.
The accuracy of the newly reported defects was
first evaluated by exacavation and ultrasonic
measurements. Good matching was found when
comparing the depth of reported defects versus
the measured depth (Figure 2). Corrosion features
which required repairs were identified with high
degree of accuracy.
3. EKOFISK-EMDEN gas line was inspected initially by
conventional MFL tool in 1977 and 1980. Based on
the initial findings it was elected to inspect
the line in 1986 using second generation MFL tool
to achieve the specified accuracy. The inspection
revealed 18 features; five defects were reported
to be possible circumferential cracks at girth
weld locations. The most critcal defect was
uncovered and this confirmed presence of 87 mm
long by 10 mm deep crack at the edge of an
internal root weld.
4. Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) was initially
inspected by modified MFl tool from the first
generation. In 1987 the pig runs produced 12
signals as real defects in addition to several
pits which were introduced artificially by TAPS.
Alyeska choose to excavate each area of the 12
corrosion indications. Of the twelve graded
corrosion signals. 11 showed no corrosion and one
ident ified a non corrosive meta l-loss area
approaching 50% of pipe wall.
Alyeska ran an advanced Ultrasonic tool in July
1989. The survey indicated 408 anomalies ranging
from 10 to 20% metal loss. The inspection of 308
anomalies gave Alyeska good confidence about the
capability of the Ultrasonic tool to size defects
even those of small size.
SPE 25582
INSPECTION SURVEYS CARRIED OUT BY
ZADCO
1. SURVEYS CARRIED OUT FOR THE 42"
MAIN OIL LINE
Seven contractors were invited to inspect the 42w
line. The scope of work for the inspection comprised
the following:-
To detect. size and accurately locate pipeline
defects.
To discriminate between internal and external
defects.
To report the defects in a format which can be
used to evaluate the integrity of the pipeline.
The contractors were given the choice to offer any
type of inspection tool. We requested them to
provide detailed information covering the
capabilities and limitations of their tools. and to
explain how the tools can achieve the claimed
capabilities.
Three contractors proposed MFL too 1s of the first
generation type. They declined to detect defects in
girth welds and one of them stated that blind area
will exist 6w from each weld. They also advised that
their tools can not guarantee the discrimination
between internal and external defects.
Two contractors proposed second generation MFL tools
and both guaranteed that their tools will meet most
of ZADCD quality specification.
The last two contractors proposed Ultrasonic tools.
However the possibi 1ity of having free gas in the
line was considered to be a potential risk which may
affect the reliability of any Ultrasonic tool.
ZADCO selected one of MFL tools belonging to second
generation; and the selection was based on the
following:-
Tool belongs to second generation of MFL systems
which can provide accurate information about the
condition of the pipeline and location and
magnitude of mechanical defects if any.
SPE 25582
Selected tool is compact, relatively short and
lighter in weight and easy to handle. It does not
require any modifications of the traps at both
ends of the pipeline.
The contractor uses Electronic Geometry Pig which
is an advanced caliper pig as part of his scope
of work.
Cost of overa 11 inspect ion was cheaper than the
offer made by another contractor proposing
another advanced MFl tool.
The inspect ion survey was comp leted in August 1989
and it indicated interna 1 meta 1 loss due to
corrosion. The type of corrosion was classified as
general corrosion with localized pits. The general
corrosion ranged from 1 to 2 mm thinning. The
localized pits extended to 50 percent of the
original wall thickness in worst cases.
Nearly all defects were located in the 6 O'clock
position of the line. The corrosion data charts were
correlated with the line profile maps and
considerable amount of corroded areas were found in
the low points of the pipeline. The corroded areas
spread over the entire length of the pipeline.
These corroded areas were categorized in terms of
severity as follows:-
1. 1700 meters having metal loss which vary from 30%
to 60%.
2. 3400 meters having metal loss which vary from 20%
to 35%.
3. 3600 meters having metal loss which vary from 10%
to 25%.
An Ultrasonic Scan was performed on selected areas
at the onshore side of the line to validate the
inspection data. The coating was removed and the
pipe was cleaned to a surface suitable to carry out
Ultrasonic inspection. A 30 mm X 30 mm square grid
pattern was mapped onto the pipe to obtain full
coverage of the defective areas. The Ultrasonic
measurements matched reasonably we 11 with the
inspection data.
Future operability of the pipeline was calculated
using ANSI/ASME B-31.4 standard code formula.
The calculations indicated that the line can be
operated up to a maximum internal pressure of 688
psi which is far above the maximum required
operating pressure.
F. HERAIBA 5
Following the results of this inspection survey;
several corrosion control measures were considered
and implemented.
It was also decided to inspect other oil lines
connected to the 42'" Ma i n 0i l l ine; in order to
determine their condition.
Two 24'" (609.6 mm) oil trunk lines were inspected by
the same contractor in March 1990. The two
inspection surveys indicated substantial metal loss
due to corrosion.
The reports which were submitted for each survey
included the following:-
list of defected areas indicating location.
orientation-and classification of the defect.
Contour plots for selected defects (Figure 3).
Detailed analysis of these reports revealed the
following:-
1. The inspection data were relatively reliable in
locating defects. However the accuracy of
measuring the defect depths was questionable.
This was confirmed when the reported metal losses
for two externa 1 defects were compared with the
actual measured depths.
2. The contour plots created some confusion since
its colour coding indicated that defects exist
with deeper depth compared with the
classification given in the list of defected
areas. The exp lanat ion given by the contractor
did not clarify the confusion.
Our discussions with the contractor revealed that
the contour plots display the magnetic flux
leakage signal amplitude and not the wall
thickness derived from the analysis of the
signaPls. The contractor confirmed that these
plots produce shape and depth of defect but they.
are not in direct correlation to their
dimensions. This renders the contour plots to be
of limited value in evaluating the integrity of
the pipe.
3. The data prov ided in the report can not be used
in determining the severity of any metal loss
damage on the inspected pipe 1i nes based on the
more accurate NG-18 Surface Flaw Formula; which
provides an accurate method to predict rupture
pressure of corroded pipe.
6 EVALUATION OF PIPELINE INTEGRITY BY ON-LINE INSPECTION
In spite of the above 1imitations the inspection
informat ion indicated that there is a substantial
amount of internal corrosion and highlighted the
importance of inspecting ZADCO pipeline network.
Hence it was dec ided to carry out a second
inspection survey for the Main Oil Line using
advanced MFL tool.
The superior performance of this tool arises from
using extremely powerful magnetizing system; very
large number of sensors having circumferential
spacing of very few millimeters (Figure 4). The
company using this tool has an extensive library of
known signatures of defects having different
configurations.
These are compared to the recorded defects, thus
increasing the accuracy and reliability of the
interpreted data.
This second survey which was completed in December
1990 reported 87434 metal loss defects; generally
characteristiced as general corrosion with pitting.
The metal loss defects grouped in clusters were
categorized as fo110ws:-
1).21,857 - metal loss clusters ranging from 0.05 to
0.20 of nominal wall thickness.
2).64,448 - metal loss clusters ranging from 0.20 to
0.40 of nominal wall thickness.
3).2125 - metal loss clusters greater than 0.40 but
less than or equal to 0.60 of wall thickness.
4) . Four meta 1 loss c lusters greater than 0.60 but
less than 0.8 of wall thickness.
The reports provided by this contractor included:-
1. Metal loss sunmary report based on automatic
feature recognition and sizing process which
takes into account the interaction of neighboring
metal loss indications according to interaction
rules based on the NG-18 formula (Figure 5).
Fa ilure Pressure Rat io (FPR) is ca lcu lated for
each cluster of interacting metal loss
indications.
2. Defects with high FPR and defects of depth
exceed ing 0.5 wa 11 th ickness were subjected to
detailed sizing. The selected defects were
reported in a format which defines the type.
orientation, dimension and location of the defect
(Figure 6).
SPE 25582
3. Metal loss histograms (Figure 7) and scatter
graph of cluster average depth versus length
(Figure 8).
The analysis of corrosion inspection survey
concluded that the line condition is satisfactory
for operations provided that strict corrosion
control is applied.
However to confirm the above conclusion, ZADCO
decided to run another survey within one or two
years in order to reassess the line. It was also
decided that same tool should be used to compare
readings and hence evaluate corrosion growth rate.
This third inspection survey was completed in
September 1992. The data in the inspection survey
report were interpreted us ing an improved software
which was introduced at the end of 1990. To ensure
compat ibi 1ity between the 1990 and 1992 inspect ion
surveys, the 1990 data were reprocessed using the
latest soft ware.
The results of the 1992 inspect ion showed a 1imited
further corrosion progress since the previous
inspection in the December 1990.
The histograms and corros ion growth 1ist ing show a
number of spools indicating a decrease in estimated
meta 1 loss. These were c la imed by contractor to be
due to a reduction in feature dimension generated by
automatic analysis procedures made by the improved
software and hence they considered that 1990
originally processed data to be pessimistic in
sizing metal loss.
Further discussions are sti 11 carried out with the
contractor to clarify some points and final report
is still awaited.
2. SURVEYS OF THE 14" MAIN OIL LINE
CONNECTING UMM AL-DALKH FIELD TO
ZAKUM CENTRAL COMPLEX
w
The corrosion defects which were found in the 42
MOL concluded the need to carry out an inmediate
inspect ion for the 1ines connected to it including
MOL of UA Field.
The line is 14w (355.6 nm) diameter of 0.688 (17.5
mm) wa 11 thickness and extends for about 65 kms.
Five contractors were requested to submit proposa ls
for inspecting the line.
SPE 25582
The wall thickness represented a major problems for
MFL tools. Contractors using this system stated that
lower standards of inspection should be expected
unless major modification of their tools. financed
by ZADCO is carried out. Two contractors proposed
ultrasonic tools and one of them was selected to
carry out the survey.
The contractor recommended a spec ia1 clean ing
programme to remove any debr is or so 1ids wh ich may
exist in the line.
Several runs were carried out using a cleaning pig
supplied by the same contractor and the last run was
performed by the contractor who confirmed that the
line is clean.
Caliper survey was performed early February 1990 and
no anomalies were found. The tool brought a small
amount of debris into the receiver. Dummy inspection
pig was run followed by the ultrasonic inspection
tool.
The memory of the tool was filled up after only 30
kms of the line. A second run was attempted
ut i 1izing a de lay mode which wi 11 allow the tool to
start recording after comp let ing the first 30 kms.
The memory of the too 1 was fi lled up after on ly 4
kms and the analysis of the data demonstrated very
high level of no signal information indicating that
the transducer signals were being scattered by a
very rough inner pipe wall surface or debris in the
line. or both.
The contractor recommended that ZADCO should
undertake a cleaning programme consisting of
alternating brush and magnet cleaning pigs. The
cleaning programme continued for more than one month
and both types of pigs brought very 1itt le debris
into the receiver. The magnet pigs gathered very
little ferrous material.
The fina 1 c leaning pig was witnessed by the
contractor's representative who confirmed that the
line was sufficiently clean and ready to launch the
inspection instrument.
The too 1 fa i led to record any data and contractor
claimed that the problem was due to damaging the
tool processor by metallic debris in the line.
The contractor advised that the debris is thought to
be particles of corroded material which are normally
kept attached to the inner pipe wall by scale build
up.
F. HERAIBA 7
Passage of heavy instrumented pigs broke down this
scale and disturbed the debris. thereby causing
unsuccessful runs of the inspection tool.
The contractor stated that no intelligent pig.
ultrasonic or magnetic flux leakage. should be
attempted until the line is subjected to extensive
scale removal and cleaning programme.
The contractor recommended a long duration cleaning
programme wh ich was not accepted by ZADCO. ZADCO
decided to inspect the line using advanced MFL tool
after modifying it to cover the excessive wall
thickness of the pipeline.
The inspect ion survey was carried out in May 1991;
and 5 success i ve runs were requ i red to cover the
pipeline length. The first 4 runs recorded good
quality data covering the first 58.6 kms of the
line. However a section of primary sensor array
developed a fault in the fifth run which covered the
distance from 58.6 km to the receiving trap at 65.6
km. This caused an impaired defect detect ion in a
186 mm spiral band throughout the last 7 kms which
corresponds to 1.5% of the total surface area of the
pipeline.
The analysis of the inspection data indicated an
evidence of minor internal metal loss which can be
attributed to the construction of the pipe in the
mill and this was scattered randomly throughout the
pipe.
In addition to the above. there was evidence of
minor internal corrosion in the bottom of the last
part of the line.
ZADCO did not accept the completion of the job until
repeated run was carried out in October 1992
covering the last part of the pipeline. This run
confirmed that there is evidence of minor internal
corrosion at the bottom of the last 6.5 kms of the
line.
3. INSPECTION SURVEY CARRIED OUT FOR
24" WATER INJECTION LINE.
Inspection of this line was decided to evaluate the
condit ion of the water inject ion network after 6
years of operation and to evaluate the effect of the
sea water treatment and corrosion control
programmes.
8 EVALUATION OF PIPELINE INTEGRITY BY ON-LINE INSPECTION
The selected line connects lAKUM Central Complex
wi th the North Sate 11 ite and the 1ine is 24" (509.6
mm) diameter, of 1.125" (28.6 mm) wall thickness and
extends for about 13 km.
Seven contractor were requested to submit proposa ls
for inspecting the line and their answers indicated
that all MFL too 1s cannot inspect the 1ine due to
its wall thickness. Accordingly a contractor
proposing advanced ultrasonic tool was selected to
carry out the job.
The contractor requested the use of special cleaning
pigs to remove any dirts, solids or scale which may
cover the corrosion pits.
This is required to ensure that the Ultrasonic beam
can penetrate to the bottom of the pits. Two
clean ing runs were conducted and both brought no
significant scale or debris.
The inspection runs were carried out in May 1990 and
three runs were conducted. The first run failed
part ia lly and no data were recorded at all in the
second run. The failure was attributed to ingress of
air which was not completely vented while running
the pigs.
The third run recorded all inspection data. The
survey indicated lamination, external and internal
metal loss and also recorded all subjects which are
welded to the pipeline.
The metal loss recorded was insignificant and
1aminat ions found are a norma 1 occurrence in the
pipe which probably were enclosed in the plates from
which the pipe was made.
4. INSPECTION OF SATAH FIELD MAIN OIL
LINE AND ONE GAS TRUNK LINE IN
ZAKUM FIELD
Five contractor were requested to submit proposals
to inspect these two lines.
SATAH Main Oil line is 14"(355.6 mm) diameter, of
0.75"(19 mm) wall thickness and extends for about 57
kms. The 1ine transfers crude oi 1 from SATAH field
to lIRKU Island. The stream is two phase with
relatively high H2S content.
The gas trunk line connects North Satellite to lAKUM
Central Complex.
SPE 25882
The line is 24"(509.6 mm) diameter, its length is
about 13 km and its wall thickness is 0.688"(17.5
mm). The gas flows under extreme low operating
pressure.
All contractors advised that the inspection tool
will stop at girth welds until pressure builds up
behind it and then the tool moves at very high speed
subjecting the tool to damage. Two solutions for the
problem were proposed:
To increase the operat ing pressure of the 1ine
and this can not be achieved without installing
gas compression facilities.
Or to temporarily convert the line to liquid flow
while running the inspection tool.
The contractor who carried out the second and third
inspection jobs for the 42" pipeline advised that
advanced MFL too 1s can not do the job un less major
modifications are carried out to solve the problems
related to the excessive wall thickness. The cost of
the proposed modifications' for MFL tool rendered it
to be relatively expensive. Hence contractor
proposing ultrasonic tool was finally selected by
ZADCO to carry out the two inspection jobs.
4.1. INSPECTION FOR THE 14" MOL
The contractor advised that liquid batch should be
used to provide a couplant for the Ultrasonic
transducers. lADCO requested the contractor to be
responsib le for all necessary arrangements for the
liquid batch.
Several cleaning runs were carried out before
running the inspection tool; and the last run was
attended by the contractor who accepted the degree
of cleanliness of the line. Gauge plate pig was then
used to confirm free passage followed by the
inspection tool which was launched in diesel batch
in August 1992.
This run fa i led and the inspect ion . too 1 was
extensively damaged. The failure was attributed to
pumping the batch liquid at pressure exceeding the
allowable pressure of the inspection tool.
The second run was carried out in Nov. 1992
follOWing repeated cleaning runs using special type
of pigs. Checking the recorded data after receiving
the inspection pig indicated successful operation
for the tool.
9 F. HERAIBA
The inspection report is not received yet. However
in order to provide liquid couplant for the
ultrasonic transducers, several batches of diesel
were pumped in the line which caused repeated
production shutdowns. The estimated indirect
additional cost to carry out the job was $ 300,000.
This value in addition to the cost of the inspection
job revealed that inspecting the line by ultrasonic
tool might not be the cost effective selection.
4.2. INSPECTION FOR THE 24" GAS TRUNK
LINE
Piping modifications were made to allow pumping
water in the pipeline prior to and during the
inspection run. In addition very high standards of
clean 1iness were set by the contractor to ensure
reliable inspection data.
Accordingly lADCD increased the frequency of routine
cleaning. This was followed by running special
cleaning pigs which removed about 200 kgs of foreign
materials in each run. More cleaning pigs were
launched for about 10 days and the amount of foreign
materia 1s decreased to about 30 kg. The materials
changed from soft wax to hard res idue. The
contractor then advised that mechanical cleaning
operations by pigs wi 11 not achieve the required
degree of clean 1iness and that a more aggress ive
chemical solvent should be considered.
It was then decided to suspend the operations until
the nature of the residue is analysed and the
arrangements required to clean the line are
implemented.
The indirect additional cost for the inspection job
(which had not yet been completed) is about $
400,000. It is expected that similar cost will be
spent to meet the cleanliness standards required for
the Ultrasonic tool.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Utilization of in line inspection tools proved to be
valuable and cost effective means to detect
defective areas in the pipeline.
The internal condition of the pipeline and the
degree of clean 1iness shou ld be assessed accurate ly
by the pipeline operator. This should be considered
in the selection process of the inspection tool.
SPE 25582
Our experience with the ultrason ic too ls confi rmed
that the tool is extremely sensitive to any
contaminants in the pipeline like wax, corrosive
solids attached to the pipe wall or any other type
of debris.
Extensive cleaning of the pipeline is essential to
achieve reliable ultrasonic inspection data. The
cost of the necessary arrangements for an effective
cleaning can be very expensive and should be
considered in the overall cost.
Liquid interface is a must to ensure proper transfer
of ultrasonic energy into and out of the pipe wall.
Gas or air bubbles shou ld be totally avoided while
running ultrasonic tool.
MFL tools of the second generation type satisfied
most of ZADCD Inspection requirements except for
lines whose wall thickness exceed the MFL limits.
Selection of MFL tools should take into
consideration the design of magnetizing system,
number and arrangement of the sensors, the
experience of other operators with the tool and
contractor who is running it. The reporting format
should provide information about pipeline defects,
how much they affect the pipeline integrity and what
areas require immediate repair. It should also
provide means to assess corrosion growth which took
place during the period between two successive
inspection runs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We thank the management of ABU DHABI NATIONAL OIL
COMPANY (ADNDC) and the management of lAKUM
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (lADCO) for their permission to
pub 1ish th is paper. Thanks is given to Product ion
Department staff and thanks and appreciation for our
secretaries for their great effort and help.
REFERENCE
1. W.K. Holm., "Magnetic inspection pigging is an
aid to pipeline maintenance" Pipeline Industry -
July 1985.
2. G. Avrin and R.I. Coote "On-Line Inspection and
Analysis for Integrity" Report published by NOVA,
an Alberta Corporation.
10 EVALUATION OF PIPELINE INTEGRITY BY ON-LINE INSPECTION SPE 25582

3. G.A. Nespeca and K.B. Hveding "Intelligent

Pigging of Ekofisk-Emden 36 "Gas Pipeline" SPE
18232 Presented in the Annual Techn ica 1
Conference and Exhibition of the SPE held in
Houston. TX Dctober 2-5. 1998.

4. Magnetic Flux Pig Run successful on TAPS Dil &

Gas Journal - Oct . 1988.

5. "Alyeska maps big corrosion repair program on

Tran-Alaska Crude Line" - Dil & Gas Journal April
3D. 1990 Page 23 - 26.
 SPE25582

-~----
III1II
....;.;;..--.;;;..;..-.----~--- ~~
.111__-
....
HAGNFTIC FLUX LINES SHOWN SCHEMATICALLY AROUND A PIPE DEFECT.

Figure -1

III REPORTED DEPTH "10

100 1:1
/
/
/
90 //
/
'" '"
80

70 /
,/
/
. . '"
/
'"
",'" '" '"'"
/'
'"
60
/ '" '"'" ",'" '"'"
/
'"
50
A / '" '" '"
.'" ",'" '"'"
'"
40
/
J,.
",.
'" '"

",'" '"'"
30 y '"'" '"'"
20
/
/
A.",
/ '". . ",'" '"
/
/ J,. SPIRAL CORROSION
GENERAL CORROSION
1:1 line
'" '" == 10% ERROR ALLOWANCE
10
/ '" '"
( '"
Oa:...-......,t.:.-__-~-~--...-'""'T"-_r-..,...-""'T""___,
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

ACTUAL DEPTH %
Figure-2

INSPECTION SURVEY REPORTED DEPTH VS.

ACTUAL DEPTH
 SPE25582

i
~4

!
I
I
I
[2] - channel ( 3] - c ire urn of er.;:.e:.:.;nc=-=~~(m.:.:;:rn.;.:.]__....:[--'.4.:!..]-=-=--=.'=~1o::..::c~k:::..w.:...;,s::.:::!"1

Figure - 3

Figure - 4
ADVANCED MFL TOOL
 SPE255 82
CRITERIA FOR INTERACTIoN

CIRCUMFERENTIAL
IIIOTH

... __ .....~
..
_ _ - lI
~
, .~~.:-:~.:-:.::-:.:.;.::;:

7e
~~~:::::::-31
I :.. ..- I
I I
I
I
I
I
PROJECTED AXIAL LENGTH

AXIAL INTERACTION HAY OCCUR IF L3 IS LESS THAN L1 AND L2

CIRCUl1FERENTIAL INTERACTION HAY OCCUR IF \/3 IS LESS THAN III AND liz

Figure- 5

Figure- 6
DEFECT DETAILED SHEET
PIPEliNE INSPECTION SHEET NO: ~3

Qil:!N!'A.'::l;iK: . &.. :;0

r~':::lQCic\
!!.1!"J?..!: NTJlf8t!l: 48/1

lU1'tlU Q!1!.!:ISIOHS:
?U.CW-II No. 43/1

A.x1.al lOt. .
Cl:,c:::afllrent1al liS6. .
Cei'c.~ - ..veu1e 36: .-r
- ,el.:ic. 53: .-r .

St=lp lI.ap NWlber .'0.8029

uru.!NC!:
1. a..-'ODt
(C:' 49810 6.111)

2. NODE
(C7 49930 + 6.0la)

it.fDlEYCE Gri.'IH qttD:

~. r:eference ,11:0 veld ~c t..'1. z.u::nc CE:NI1U.L (Upu.tUIl.) enci 0: ::..
fucun ,pool 15 aUlaoftC' 49900.

n. locacoa of u1s veld 1.s 103.91:1: dovnsceu f'r=m rafue=lC1t 1 and

42.&1. u:pct:n.g ft'OlI r:e!ereo.ce 1.

FEAnra& t..oeA':"ION:
:he fucuu 1s locaced 2.... dOfoo"DSCeaci =011 a. reference S:.:-....:r. ve!'d.

G1ro ;.lcl !.EF!lWfCt 1 f!.AF a.u~ Z i

:i'umbflr _4_58.,..8_3 49...,8.,..9_0 4_9.,.90_0 4_'.,."_0 0'.,..9.,..2_0 '9..,9_30_1
1"1'1=. L.&n~Q L2.2:& 12.:::::. L2.4111 12.1:1 ::.. ~ I
ZA.J:UK a:m.u. no~) :::?J::1 :Su.:O

C:;M.V:S~
~e fu.r.ure is e:tarac:~!!nsi:.:c. ot' i:lce:na.l :eol :'05S &.:Ia :'.s :.::.-t =osr.
:oc.&ol. in .l s?ool c.ant.11nln~ nWllerous DC-at' :llIu.l ion u.::l:"~:'ocs.

:e:a:i.h of :.":esc oIre s1'l'e:n in the selScence4 .:.II loss l~~~~ :..:.
Se~::.on '?l.
 SPE25582

SEfJIENCEO METAL LOSS HISTOGRAM

~~~~~~,~~~~~,~~~"-----,------

lakum CenLral Complex Lo Z,rku Island

1
I

Oll 5P E21n
Figure - 7 20-r1AR-91
30 ..
10 ..
30. F.P.R >0.30

r-r--+--',---r-,-r,~,---r-,or,-r,.....",..-+-,'A,-, ,---r-.,....... ~1-L,

.L.,.'

20. 10. 50. 60.

SCA TTER fiRAPl1 or: CLUSTER AVERAGE DEPTH vs CLUSTER LENGTH

ZAK1Jn CENTRAL conpu,x 10 Z iRKU ISLAND

100.

V1
MAO? "lI,a psi
."
c., UO.
z
'"
w
....:c
.....
.....
-(
3:
60.
~ ,',,

~ ':.

..
'Y. I
'LJ

~ r)
1-
VI
;:)
.....
'-J

'1. '0.
0
:r:
.... 1250 psi
u.a
n.

~
'LJ
L:J

...>
<{
c-.: 711.
-(

I
(), 1 - - - -
II. 1.10. ]'0. 3&0. 'so. bOO.

LENGTH OF CLUSTER 1m",!

Fi~ure -8
SCATTER GR~PH OF CLUSTER