where expertise comes together - since 1996 -

The Largest Open Access Portal of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

Conference Proceedings, Articles, News, Exhibition, Forum, Network and more

where expertise comes together
- since 1996 -

3344 views
Technical Discussions
Rolf D.
Director, Editor
NDT.net, Germany, Joined Nov 1998, 602

Rolf D.

Director, Editor
NDT.net,
Germany,
Joined Nov 1998
602
06:51 Aug-15-2006
BP's pipeline testing

What lessons we can learn from BP's internal pipeline corrosion problems?
Must be pigging part of a routine, UT and/or MFL?
What other techniques should be used?

Rolf


    
 
 
Rich Roberts
Engineering, Executive Managment
Quest Integrity Group, USA, Joined Nov 1998, 78

Rich Roberts

Engineering, Executive Managment
Quest Integrity Group,
USA,
Joined Nov 1998
78
07:39 Aug-15-2006
Re: BP's pipeline testing
The events which have taken place at BP – Prudhoe Bay are very unfortunate, however preventable. I worked at this location (previously ARCo) from 1985 to 1992 and quite familiar with the existing pipe systems covering the oil field. When I was there we use to use Neutron Backscatter to rapidly scan 100% of the lines and then follow up with manual and automated ultrasonics on those areas which contained large quantities of water. We never lost a line during the period I was there. I’ve heard that this sort of program has been drastically reduced, which has ultimately caused the line degradation to go unnoticed.

I personally would have recommended use of routine “batch” exchange pig to keep the water pushed through the lines. A batch pig is a simple device which is constructed of oversized polyurethane disk to push product or water on down the line. This would force the standing water downstream into the separation units and dealt with at this controlled location. By moving the water downsteam, theywould have most likely been able to keep the microbes to a minimum, thus reducing corrosion caused by excretion.

Ultrasonic based intelligent pigging should have also been considered as a routine monitoring system. Each line could be placed on scheduled pigging runs, which would have identified any areas where corrosion activity was present. By combining the water removal and routine monitoring BP would have most likely never had to deal with the situation they are faced with today.

----------- Start Original Message -----------
: What lessons we can learn from BP's internal pipeline corrosion problems?
: Must be pigging part of a routine, UT and/or MFL?
: What other techniques should be used?
: Rolf
------------ End Original Message ------------




    
 
 
Godfrey Hands
Engineering,
PRI Nadcap, United Kingdom, Joined Nov 1998, 287

Godfrey Hands

Engineering,
PRI Nadcap,
United Kingdom,
Joined Nov 1998
287
02:43 Aug-16-2006
Re: BP's pipeline testing
----------- Start Original Message -----------
: What lessons we can learn from BP's internal pipeline corrosion problems?
: Must be pigging part of a routine, UT and/or MFL?
: What other techniques should be used?
: Rolf
------------ End Original Message ------------

Hi Guys,

As well as MFL and Pigging, we should also consider Guided Wave Ultrasonics.

This is especially suited to pipelines which for one reason or the other cannot be pigged.

There is one manufacturer which has low cost sensors, which can be permanently installed (under insulation) to permit data subtraction in a condition monitoring mode.
This is more sensitive than a straightforward corrosion detection mode, where corrosion in the order of 2 to 5% loss of wall cross sectional area is detectable.
Please contact me if you need more info.

Godfrey



    
 
 
Rolf D.
Director, Editor
NDT.net, Germany, Joined Nov 1998, 602

Rolf D.

Director, Editor
NDT.net,
Germany,
Joined Nov 1998
602
04:00 Aug-16-2006
Re: BP's pipeline testing

At BP's Web Site
http://usresponse.bp.com/go/doctype/1249/15644/
I found a document:
BP Corrosion Monitoring Report (pdf, 1.94 MB)
http://usresponse.bp.com/posted/1249/BP_Corrosion_Monitoring_Report.127827.pdf

From this report I extracted table 14
"Inspection / Non-Destructive Examination Techniques - Benefits and Limitations"
The table is displayed on top of this message.

Godfrey suggest in his message the use of guided waves technique, however from the table and from comments in the BP report I understand that this technique seems not to be very promising (Sensitivity: Low, Accuracy: Low).

Rolf




    
 
 
Godfrey Hands
Engineering,
PRI Nadcap, United Kingdom, Joined Nov 1998, 287

Godfrey Hands

Engineering,
PRI Nadcap,
United Kingdom,
Joined Nov 1998
287
04:36 Aug-16-2006
Re: BP's pipeline testing
Godfrey again.
Yes, the BP report does suggest low sensitivity and low accuracy. It also refers to the use of Lamb Waves, and Guided Wave technology has progressed quite a bit since those days. We now use Torsional wavse as well as Longitudinal waves and Lamb Waves. Torsional waves do not leak into the product like the other waves, so test ranges of up to 150 metres may be achieved.

Typical detection of 2% loss of wall cross section may be detectable nowadays.
Location along the pipe length in the order of 10 to 20 centimetres is possible.
I would now class the sensitivity and accuracy as "medium".
As I said before, it is more suitable for pipes which cannot be pigged, whilst pigging should be the first choice.

Godfrey
----------- Start Original Message -----------
: At BP's Web Site
: http://usresponse.bp.com/go/doctype/1249/15644/
: I found a document:
: BP Corrosion Monitoring Report (pdf, 1.94 MB)
: http://usresponse.bp.com/posted/1249/BP_Corrosion_Monitoring_Report.127827.pdf
: From this report I extracted table 14
: "Inspection / Non-Destructive Examination Techniques - Benefits and Limitations"
: The table is displayed on top of this message.
: Godfrey suggest in his message the use of guided waves technique, however from the table and from comments in the BP report I understand that this technique seems not to be very promising (Sensitivity: Low, Accuracy: Low).
: Rolf
------------ End Original Message ------------




    
 
 
Old UT guy
Old UT guy
06:09 Aug-17-2006
Re: BP's pipeline testing
----------- Start Original Message -----------
: : What lessons we can learn from BP's internal pipeline corrosion problems?
: : Must be pigging part of a routine, UT and/or MFL?
: : What other techniques should be used?
: : Rolf
: Hi Guys,
: As well as MFL and Pigging, we should also consider Guided Wave Ultrasonics.
: This is especially suited to pipelines which for one reason or the other cannot be pigged.
: There is one manufacturer which has low cost sensors, which can be permanently installed (under insulation) to permit data subtraction in a condition monitoring mode.
: This is more sensitive than a straightforward corrosion detection mode, where corrosion in the order of 2 to 5% loss of wall cross sectional area is detectable.
: Please contact me if you need more info.
: Godfrey
------------ End Original Message ------------

5% of the cross sectional area of a 30" Diameter pipe x 0.500 thickness means a hole approximately 4" long would be the threshold level ofdetection, if I am applying the match correctly. Not what I would call acceptable, would you?



    
 
 
M. Kim Johnson
M. Kim Johnson
09:31 Aug-18-2006
Re: BP's pipeline testing
----------- Start Original Message -----------
: : : What lessons we can learn from BP's internal pipeline corrosion problems?
: : : Must be pigging part of a routine, UT and/or MFL?
: : : What other techniques should be used?
: : : Rolf
: : Hi Guys,
: : As well as MFL and Pigging, we should also consider Guided Wave Ultrasonics.
: : This is especially suited to pipelines which for one reason or the other cannot be pigged.
: : There is one manufacturer which has low cost sensors, which can be permanently installed (under insulation) to permit data subtraction in a condition monitoring mode.
: : This is more sensitive than a straightforward corrosion detection mode, where corrosion in the order of 2 to 5% loss of wall cross sectional area is detectable.
: : Please contact me if you need more info.
: : Godfrey
: 5% of the cross sectional area of a 30" Diameter pipe x 0.500 thickness means a hole approximately 4" long would be the threshold level of detection, if I am applying the match correctly. Not what I would call acceptable, would you?
------------ End Original Message ------------

I believe he means the cross section of the wall, but could be mistaken. E.g., if the wall crosectional thickness is 1 inch, the detectable corrosion depth would be 5% of that, or 0.05 times 1 = 0.05 inches. Or, if he meant area, it would be 0.02 to 0,05 times the annualar area for the material, itself - not the total diameter.



    
 
 
Paul Robertson
,
Netherlands, Joined Jun 2003, 12

Paul Robertson

,
Netherlands,
Joined Jun 2003
12
02:46 Aug-18-2006
Re: BP's pipeline testing
Following this posting with some interest, having just returned from that part of the world.

The MsS guided waves system is in use on the BP managed part of the oilfields, but usually applied at the cased pipe areas (road and caribou crossings)where there is no direct access for 'hands on' inspection techniques. There is nothing to suggest that the problem areas have been subject to any form of recent inspection, never mind guided waves technologies. I agree that sensitivity and accuracy of these techniques will not be as accurate as 'hands on' inspection techniques, this is after all remotely applied inspection.
Guided waves, whichever form of application, can be an extremely useful screening tool in limiting conditions, indeed it assists greatly in other parts of the Alaskan oilfields under the control of other operating companies.
So instead of giving a very useful technology a hard time, perhaps some members of the forum should comment on the real problem at hand in that part of the world - BP'slack of adequate inspection protocol whereby executives admitted openly that the company's program to find and prevent corrosion-caused leaks is seriously flawed.
Let's hope they make more use of many available technologies, each having limitations, but all having benefits.

Regards



    
 
 
Old UT Guy
Old UT Guy
05:40 Aug-22-2006
Re: BP's pipeline testing
----------- Start Original Message -----------
: Following this posting with some interest, having just returned from that part of the world.
: The MsS guided waves system is in use on the BP managed part of the oilfields, but usually applied at the cased pipe areas (road and caribou crossings)where there is no direct access for 'hands on' inspection techniques. There is nothing to suggest that the problem areas have been subject to any form of recent inspection, never mind guided waves technologies. I agree that sensitivity and accuracy of these techniques will not be as accurate as 'hands on' inspection techniques, this is after all remotely applied inspection.
: Guided waves, whichever form of application, can be an extremely useful screening tool in limiting conditions, indeed it assists greatly in other parts of the Alaskan oilfields under the control of other operating companies.
: So instead of giving a very useful technology a hard time, perhaps some members of the forum should comment on the real problem at hand in that part of the world - BP's lack of adequate inspection protocol whereby executives admitted openly that the company's program to find and prevent corrosion-caused leaks is seriously flawed.
: Let's hope they make more use of many available technologies, each having limitations, but all having benefits.
: Regards
------------ End Original Message ------------

Sorry if I stepped on a toe or two, as that was not my intention. I was simply pointing out that the technology is NOT a be all end all that was implied by the previous poster Godfrey. As you rightly point out, BP has admitted their program had shortfalls, and they will address them (I know this to be true, first hand)using whatever techniques fit the situation at hand. There are many challenges present, and no single inspection technique will solve all the issues. And lets not also forget, that BP is only the recent owner of these lines. Having assumed operation and ownership only a few years ago.


    
 
 
singhal sk
singhal sk
07:54 Mar-23-2007
Re: BP's pipeline testing
I would like to have copy of BP report. Please proivde as the same is not available at URL


    
 
 

Product Spotlight

Research Center IDEKO develops an ultrasonic train wheel inspection system for CAF

The Basque Research centre IK4-IDEKO has developed a state-of-the-art ultrasonic inspection system f
...
or the train wheel. This system secures a sound condition of train wheels and is thus a significant contribution to rail transport safety. The device was delivered to CAF recently and its use allows the manufacturer to become an approved supplier of rolling stock in Italy, as it meets the demanding homologation standards of this country. \\\\r\\\\n
>

Wireless TOFD scanner

Quick, accurate and highly reproducible welds testing. The System operates wirelessly and is compat
...
ible with any type of Windows based Laptop, Desktop or Tablet.
>

SITEX CPSERIES

Teledyne ICM’s CPSERIES has been designed with a view to revolutionizing the handling and perfor
...
mances of portable X-Ray sets. Despite having managed to halve the weight of similar portable X-Ray generators available on the market (while continuing to provide the same power output), the SITEX CPSERIES generators feature a shutter, a laser pointer, a beryllium window, an aluminum filter and two integrated diaphragms (customized sizes are available upon request). Without compromising the robustness and reliability for which ICM products are renowned, the small size and light weight of the SITEX CPSERIES will radically change the way that you perform your RT inspections. And you will see a positive impact in terms of both quality and return on investment (ROI).
>

ISAFE3 Intrinsically Safe Sensor System

ISAFE3 intrinsically safe sensor system of Vallen Systeme is especially targeted at the petrochemica
...
l - as well as oil and gas transportation industry. The sensor system is designed for permanent monitoring or periodic inspection tasks. Sensors are available for different AE-frequency ranges optimized for corrosion and fatigue crack detection and other applications. The ISAFE 3 sensor system consists of an AE-sensor (model ISAS3) certified according to ATEX/IEC for installation in zone 0, gas group IIC, IP68, 20 to +60 °C, and a signal isolator (model SISO3) certified for installation in zone 2. An ISAS3 sensor can be mounted in atmosphere or submerged, e.g. in water or crude oil. It is supported by mounting tools for temporary (magnets) or permanent (welded) installation. ISAFE3 supports automatic sensor coupling test and can be used with any AE signal processor supporting 28V supply at 90 mA peak, e.g. Vallen Systeme ASIP-2/A.
>

Share...
We use technical and analytics cookies to ensure that we will give you the best experience of our website - More Info
Accept
top
this is debug window
s