Pipeline safety

The costs of ameliorating pipeline leaks are far higher than regular maintenance, so it makes sense to keep on top of pipeline integrity. Industry leaders Pete Barnes, Floyd Belcher and José Larios discuss questions set by O&G.

Overall, how is the state of pipeline integrity in North America in your view?
FB. Overall pipelines remain one of the safest modes of transportation for hazardous liquids and flammable gases. However, given the average age of the pipeline infrastructure in North America we can anticipate incidents in cases where integrity management programs and maintenance practices are inadequate. Operators overall are doing an excellent job and deserve credit for the millions of barrels of product and billions of standard cubic feet of gas that they deliver each year without incident. Third party mechanical damage as a result of poor or unlawful excavation practices is likely to remain one of the highest integrity threats.

JL. As we know it, North America is a very tightly regulated market, with both liquid and gas regulations set in place now. It is fair to say some of the pipeline operators in the region still have a way to go to meet the standards and criteria to comply with these regulations, although this discrepancy should disappear over the next year or two. The issue mainly relates to the smaller operators (for example, LDCs who own some transmission lines); the larger operators have more mature, well-established integrity management plans in place.

Since the regulations started, the market has seen the emergence of new management methods, to help operators cope with the added administrative burden and pressure of audits. Process management is one of these, a methodology becoming more important to the successful implementation of integrity management programs in North America. It is now a key consideration to help achieve a successful regulatory audit, it is also an important fundamental to ensure the on-going safe operation of a pipeline system.

PB. C-SCAN has been used worldwide since the early 80s. Our experience has shown us that US pipelines are certainly not the best in the world. The US Federal Government has recognised this and has passed the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, and the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006, in to Law. This has now brought pipeline integrity into focus.

The USA has seen some very rapid attitude changes since 9/11. I don’t think that the timing was a coincidence. Someone, somewhere suddenly realised the entire US energy infrastructure is very fragile. The Prudhoe Bay incident shows this fragility, 8 percent was removed from the oil supply, albeit only for a few days.

However, there is still an over reliance on Cathodic Protection to fix all external corrosion problems. There is an opinion in the US that coating is secondary to CP. I find this attitude puzzling. The best pipelines that we have ever surveyed are in Germany, and were installed just after WW2. Why is that? Well, they still have good coating. Coating defects are detected and repaired very quickly. This detection and repair regime, coupled with CP, has protected these pipelines for almost 60 years.

And how are new technology and techniques providing the opportunity for more efficient detection and risk-management activities to ensure the integrity of pipelines?
JL. In the late 1970s, hydrotesting was the only acceptable way to prove the integrity of a pipeline. Now, using tools and techniques (largely developed by GE) it is possible to determine pipeline condition in fine detail without taking the system out of operation.

The basis of pipeline maintenance has improved from rule-of-thumb prescriptions, with unnecessarily wide safety margins, to an approach based on accurate knowledge of pipeline condition, reliable risk assessment, and an understanding of the rate of deterioration within the system.

PB. New technology can certainly help in this area. Coating defect detection is still being implemented with instrumentation designed in the 1940s. I think the attitude is that, these old systems find coating faults, ergo, they find all the faults. This is definitely not true. C-SCAN continually finds defects on pipelines that old technology has failed to find.

In 2001 we took part in an ECDA test. CIPS, Pipe-to-Soil, DCVG and PCM had already been used. We were told that all tests failed to show any defects, so they weren’t expecting C-SCAN to find anything either. Well, a 3”x 3” area of bare pipe was found at a joint, a probable site for future corrosion. Conventional methods missed this masked defect.

The NACE ECDA initiative now requires at least two complementary systems to survey a pipeline. CIPS, DCVG, ACVG all work using the same principle, by detecting a signal or CP that has manifested a voltage at the surface, they are hardly complementary. The assumption that using any two of these systems to find all faults, is incorrect.

It is better, and safer, to use two truly complementary systems, combining old technology with new technology.

FB. There have been a number of advancements in the industry in different technologies.  We have seen continuous improvements in the design of maintenance cleaning pigs and the emergence of effective chemicals for pipeline cleaning.  Other developments in the corrosion control area include increased accuracy and resolution for corrosion inspection tools.  Pipeline data mapping and mechanical damage detection tools have advanced significantly as well.  An operator can have a pipeline geo-referenced and receive mechanical stress-strain calculations with a single inspection run.  Direct Assessment methodology has led to advancements in predictive corrosion models. 

New leak detection systems that involve laser and infrared technologies are proving to be very effective as well.  Finally, technical advances in software management systems allow the integration of many complex data sets.  The integration and transformation of data into useful information is the key to improved risk assessment.  Subsequently, Operators are able to efficiently identify and proactively implement mitigative actions.

This is a well-regulated industry. Do you think the lawmakers have got the balance right?
PB. I think so, but time will tell. Things have certainly changed for the better. Since the passing of the new Laws I’ve already mentioned, the PHMSA has big teeth; CEO’s should be in fear of prison. By the way, the time allowed for compliance is running out, which for HCA’s is December next year.

If an unavoidable accident happens and a lesson is learned that is demonstrably acted on then that’s possibly excusable. However, if a blind-eye is turned because a known problem would cost too much to fix, then the big-guns should be pointed. “We didn’t know” is no longer an excuse.

JL. There are two schools of thought nowadays, regarding pipeline regulations.

On one hand, a co-operative, self-imposed regulation, as is the current practice in much of Europe or the Middle East for example, can be seen as a good way forward, as it allows flexibility to look at new ways of managing pipeline integrity.

On the other hand, the prescriptive rules now mandatory for operators in the US, can be seen as necessary given the fact the North America holds around half of the world installed based of transmission lines.

Both types are adapted to the local needs and are helping operators better maintain the safety and productivity of their assets.

FB. The pipeline industry is well regulated, but you can look at it from a couple of different perspectives. The initial Pipeline Safety Act was issued in 1968. In some ways, that was quite long ago basically over four decades. Contrarily, there have been numerous improvements and amendments to the regulations with some of the most significant changes in just the past few years. Specifically, the pipeline integrity management rules were issued around 2002 for liquids and 2003 for gas lines. Unfortunately, these enhancements followed two high profile incidents. Lawmakers do have the right balance overall. The pipeline industry is one of the safest, but given the severity and consequence of certain incidents the public will demand even better performance. There have been improvements in the pipeline regulations, which resulted from co-operative efforts between Operators and lawmakers.

Can you tell us a little about your own solutions in this space?
FB. The major challenge in regards to pipeline integrity and promoting pipeline safety are:

• Operators continuing development of strategic inspection and maintenance programs,
• Sufficient funding and maintaining the necessary skilled personnel to implement and perform required maintenance and inspection tasks,
• Develop a means to pig/evaluate the older unpiggable lines.

In closing, I feel the most important preventative measure to insure pipeline safety and prolong pipeline service life is routine schedule inspection and continued advancement in industry technology as we have seen in the recent past.

PB. Conservatively, if the entire pipeline network in the USA had no coating, there would need to be a rectifier station at least every mile. The electricity cost alone, would be more than $1bn per year, with about 8M tons of CO2 emitted per year. Even then there would be no guarantee against corrosion.

The first step in any solution is to acknowledge that a pipeline’s coating is its first line of defence against external corrosion. C-SCAN was specifically designed to assess the integrity of the coating, along with useful information such as depth of cover and location.

Next is to assess the probability of active corrosion being present at sites of damage detected by C-SCAN, using technology specific for that purpose. Finally prioritize the severity of these damaged areas and repair them.

Most importantly, continue to survey the pipeline regularly. Once an initial survey and repair regime has been realised, use C-SCAN to carry out quick check surveys to monitor for any further deterioration.

The cost of a coating defect could be a rupture, costing millions of dollars in cleanup costs and damages, or a small area re-coated. I know where I would rather spend my money.

JL. We provide a comprehensive range of detection, inspection and integrity management services for pipeline operators. Our tools draw on an unparalleled history and culture of technological innovation and in-field success. We have accurately and consistently identified anomalies of every type and size, in every kind of pipeline. Collecting all these different types of data sets and analysing them thoroughly helps pipeline operators move beyond detection- to enhanced long-term safety and productivity.

No matter where in the world, third party damage continues to be the greatest threat to the safe operation of transmission pipelines. Third party damage takes many forms for example excavation and impact during construction or farming activity, but in nearly all cases physical impact can lead to either immediate or a delayed failure posing a threat to safety and to the environment. GE's ThreatScan impact detection system has been specifically developed to provide pipeline operators the means to reliably determine when and where their pipeline has been struck, and even prevent right of way encroachment wherever possible.

Our inspection tools use advanced ultrasonic and magnetic technologies to obtain precise descriptions in the widest range of pipeline types. From deep sea, thick wall, high pressure lines, to onshore transmission and gathering lines, and sometimes in ‘unpiggable’ conditions, from 6’’ to 56’’ diameter, we have the capability to inspect for corrosion, cracks and geometric anomalies, with mapping options.

GE's integrity services draw on more than two decades of engineering and consultancy experience in the oil and gas industry. We help our global customers improve the safety of their pipelines by providing a breadth of services from direct assessment to quantitative risk assessment, and streamline major projects with turnkey in-field services, pipeline repair and rehabilitation. We can improve engineering, operations and maintenance efficiency with GIS and data management software and optimize costs and simplify decision making with focused integrity management planning.

A triumph in one area can lead to remarkable enhancements in the next, so we leave no stone unturned with our research and development programmes. We transform in-field discoveries into new software utilities, and we use other programming innovations to increase our data resolution and inspection efficiency. Many environmental and operational factors are beyond our clients’ control- so our job is to maximise control everywhere possible. And we have been doing just that for more than 25 years.

About the contributors

José Larios is the Marketing Leader for GE's PII Pipeline Solutions business. Larios joined the company in 1997 as a Field Engineer, moved to a Sales Manager's position in 1998 and most recently held the position of Marketing Manager – In Line Inspection. He holds a Bachelors Degree in Electrical Engineering and also an MBA from the University of Texas. As part of his 10 years with the company, Larios brings a wealth of domain expertise in our industry and the commercial competency in both his previous marketing and sales roles.

Floyd Belcher founded Pipeline Accident Prevention Service in 1986 with the primary focus of providing pipeline safety services to the Oil and Gas industry.

Belcher has been in the oil and gas pipeline industry for 30 years. Beginning his career with United Gas Pipeline Company in 1975. He became United Texas Transmission Company’s Manager of Governmental Compliance in 1982 before going on to form PAPS.

Pete Barnes is a Director of Dynalog Electronics Ltd. Under his design guidance, the C-SCAN Pipeline Survey system has seen three major upgrades over the past twenty years. As a significant part of the development program, Barnes has surveyed pipelines in more than 16 countries. He has presented papers to international conferences including “Coating Evaluation by Current Attenuation” for a NACE seminar in 2006. Barnes has an Honours Degree in Electronic and Electrical Engineering.