1. METAL LOSS IN-LINE INSPECTION SURVEYS LIMITS AND INACCURACIES

2. 2 BACKGROUND Began use in 1960’s. Initial inspection tools were low resolution, low power tools. Suitable for finding where to look for corroded pipe. Better resolution and power offered in 1980’s. High resolution tools began use in late 1980’s. Despite limitations and inaccuracies, pipelines began to calculate pressure limits based on in-line inspection grading in late 1990’s/early 2000’s.

3. INACCURACIES IN PRESSURE LIMIT CALCULATIONS

4. 4

5. 5 RUPTURES

6. 6 LEAKS

7. 7 High Resolution Inspection Tool Stated Limits and Inaccuracies API 1160 Inspection Company’s Specs

8. 8 API 1160 Limits on High Resolution Tools Cannot detect or reliably detect: –Narrow axial external corrosion –Cracks and crack like defects –Laminations and inclusions –Pipe mill anomalies Can detect, but cannot identify or size: –Dents, wrinkle bends and buckles –Gouges

9. 9 High Resolution Pig Spec. Limitations Cannot detect or unknown accuracy –Surface areas smaller than t x t –Axially oriented areas, width less than 2t –Areas interacting with weld, smaller than 3t x 3t Minimum reported depth –For t x t to 2t x 2t, 0.4t –For larger than 2t x 2t, 0.2t –For larger than 3t x 3t, 0.1t –For areas interacting with weld, larger than 3t x 3t, 0.2t

10. 10 High Resolution Pig Spec. Accuracy Width and length –Isolated pits, + t –Complex shapes, + 2t Depth –For less than t x t, unknown –For t x t to 2t x 2t, + 0.2t –For larger than 3t x 3t, + 0.1t –For areas interacting weld, 3t x 3t and larger + 0.2t

11. 11 Case Study High Resolution Metal Loss Survey 36 miles of pipeline 695 metal loss anomalies deeper than 15% were reported Breakdown on graded wall loss > 50% t 1 40 to 49% t 6 30 to 39% t 31 20 to 29% t197 15 to 19% t460

12. 12 Field Inspection Results 200 anomalies were excavated Detailed records produced on 11 pipe joints covering 62 anomalies 90% of anomalies were deeper than graded 58% of anomalies were longer than graded 43 ungraded corrosion areas were found

13. 13 Ungraded Corrosion Areas 20 to 68% deep 0.25 to 25 inches long 0.25 to 10 inches wide Two exceeded RSTRENG

14. 14 Computer Display

15. 15 Computer Display

16. 16 Computer Display

17. 17 Computer Display

18. 18 Computer Display

19. 19 Needed Post Field Inspection Activities Organize graded vs. found data Regrade in-line inspection survey New field inspection plan Re-inspect and repair pipeline Statistical analysis of areas not inspected Apply future growth to anomalies

20. 20 Statistical Analysis of Non-Inspected Areas Bayes Theorem First applied on TAPS Also called probability of exceedance (POE) analysis Probability that an anomaly will exceed a given integrity criteria

21. 21 Non-Inspected Pipe POE Summary* POE %Number of Pipe Joints 20-295 30-393 40-494 50-597 60-692 70-795 80-893 90-991 * Exceeding RSTRENG without 10% surge allowance

22. 22 OPS Position Needed on POE Non-Compliance Limits Probability to Exceed Part 192 or Part 195 Per anomaly? Per pipe joint? Per pipeline section? Per pipeline inspection survey? Per pipeline system? 1%, 2%, 5%, 10%, More?