OPERATIONS REVIEW Offshore CP surveys must cover all pipe line facilities Homogeneous nature of subsea environment helps make corrosion control systems more reliable than those onshore dim Britton, Deepwater Corrosion Services, Inc, Houston, Texas ith the Gulf of Mexico's pipe lie infrastructure get- VY ac Menace tive cathodic protection (CP) survey of the entire system before external corrosion can start taking place. ‘Almost 6,000 mi of ative pipe lincs inthe Gulf of Mexico are ‘more than 20 years old, and another 1,200 mi are over 30 years old. Maay of these aging systems are tranamission lines, which are needed to transport il and gas from new leases in deepwa- ter locations Historically offshore pipe line CP surveys have consisted of measuring the potential ofthe riser at each end ofthe sys- tem at least once a yeat. This obviously does not provide infor- mation on the condition ofthe pipe line between those risers. ‘Ofishore pipe line cathodic protection systems are inher- cently more reliable than systems on onshore lines. The galvanic aluminum or zine anode bracelets usually used in conjunction ‘with high performance pipe coatings, provide reliable external corrosion control forthe pipe line's life. There are exceptions, and these exceptions are the ones that could result in an exter- nal corrosion failure, ‘The homogencous nature of the offshore environment helps ‘make corrosion control more predictable. However, if external ‘corrosion is allowed to progress, the whole pipe line could be failing at the same rate if the CP system has depleted. This ‘means that the first external corrosion hole probably signals $26 OFFSHORE Pipe Line Technology! APRIL1900 the end of the useful life ofthe pipe line, because there will be hhundreds of other sites that are close to perforation. In-line inspection. Smart pigs ae used toa limited degree on coffshere pipe lines, and high-resolution tools are capable of detect- {ng pipe wall loss through corrosion. They also are able to dif- ferentiate between internal or external corrosion. They are not capable of evaluating the remaining life ofthe anodes on the out side ofthe line. Unless in-line inspection a run regulary, they «arc oflittle use in a corrosion maintenance and integrity program. ‘A pipe line showing no external corrosion could have a CP ‘syster that is in the last stages of depolarization, and active cor- rosion cells could be initiating even asthe too isin the line. Given the corrosion rate of ste! in seawater, it won't take long for wall loss to become evident. The ine could fail in three or four years. It should be noted that the in-line inspection companies are ‘notrunning these tools for fre. A routine in-line inspection pro- ‘gram could represeat a significant hump inthe maintenance bud- get A deniled CP survey wil yield predictive information thatcan satisfy the operator thatthe CP system will remain in place for ‘many years to come. Conversely, the operator had better start thinking retrofit, ifthe ine has remaining service requirements. Fig. 2. Schamatic yout oftvee sactode sytem.Post lay i the Gulf of Mexico are inspected with divers, or a remotely operated vehicle (ROV), after installation. This inspection verifies the line is adequately buried, if required. Also, it will verify that the line ‘doesn’t have any unsupported spans. Ifa CP survey system were integrated ‘with this survey, the correct operation of the CP system and the coating condition ‘could be verified beyond any doubt. This would eliminate the need for additional inspections for the next 20 years, unless there was a mechanical incident of some kind. The incremental cost of adding this service is minimal, $200-$300/mi. To go back and survey the line later would cost $2,500-$3,000/mi. I is completely beyond comprehen sion wiy the Gulf of Mexico is one ofthe few offshore pro- ducing areas where this practice is not standard. cP Types of survey ‘Trailing wire surveys. This survey was the earliest attempt 1 conduct close interval surveys on offshore lines. Why not? It was the way in which onshore lines were sur ‘Wel, there are a number of fundamental reasons why the ‘method is flawed. During an onshore close interval survey, the standard practice isto locate the pipe line and set flags in the ‘ground every 100 ftor so. The reason for this isso the refer- ence electrode can be positioned exactly over the pipe line Every so often, there also will be a tes station consisting of a wire attached to the pipe line and brought above ground. At cach test station, the wire is reconnected and the IR error in the pipe line is corrected. Because the pipe is buried several feet below the ground, itis recessary to correct the IR error caused ty the CP current flow in the soil. Thus, the CP current is interrupted and the tead- ings recorded with the “off” cycle. Offshore practitioners of this type sur- ‘ey donone ofthis. The practice isto simply hook a wie tothe riser at one end of the pipe line and head off inthe general direction of the pipe line in azig zag fashion with a ref= «erence electrode hanging from the boat ona Jong wire. (Fig: 1) There is absohutely zero valve inthis type survey other than to deter- ‘mine the remote potential ofthe riser. ‘A quick look at any charts produced ty this method usually will show a sharp gradient atthe start ofthe run. This is fol- lowed by miles of flat Hine daa with the occasional ripple, no spikes at anodes, no depressions at major tie-ins, just useless flat line information which bas nothing, ‘whatsoever to do with the potential of the pipe line. 10 NO TTTTETETELELELELELSLEL.,,. SS A detailed CP survey will yield predictive information that can satisfy the operator that the system will remain in place for many years to come. ‘Again, itboggles the mind why the only place in the world that still considers using this survey is the Gulf of Mexico. Mex- ico’ corrosion communities long ago realized the errors inthis approach. They have been using valid survey techniques in the Gulf of Campeche for almost a decade. Problems now are being, found that went completely undetected when the tailing wire system was the standard. Multiple electrode ‘The multiple electrode sur- vey approach was originally conceived in the late 7s in the North Sea, when the need for accurate survey data became apparent. A schematic layout ofa three-electrode survey sys tem is shown in Fig 2 ‘The basic theory is 2s follows: the remote cell attached to the ROV cage or tether, or suspended from the survey vessel, is maintained at all times remote from the pipe lin. The remote potential doesn't vary more than a couple of millivolts per rile, Essentially iti flat line as demonstrated by the trail- ing wire method. This remote electrode is compared to a close electrode, ‘current density mévSaM ‘HO 3010 4510 2010 2510 3,010 3.510 4.010 4.510 5.010, Distance, meters ‘Tie atl da macnn tte en Fig. 3. Graph chow hes-eloctrode eurey pot. (OFFSHORE Pipe Line Tecnlogy /4°RI. 1990 8-27Fig. 4 Tree electrode veraustaling wire data wih end ctralig wre data ‘coming from night and main pot showing stab verified tre electro data. ‘which is maintained in as close proximity to the pipe line as possible. This electrode is mounted in the ROV manipu- lator, or may be carried by the diver. Any local changes in the pipe line potential create a gradient between the close and remote electrodes, and the magnitude and polarity of thi variation reflect electrochemical events occurring atthe pipe line, Ifthe close electrode passes an anode, which hopefully is discharging current, then a sharp negative variation will be noted. A large coating defect hopefully would be collect- ing current and would show up as a positive spike The chart in Fig. 3 shows data from a typical three-elec- ‘rode survey. The redline is the potential trace. Periodic hard contacts with anodes, every 4 or 5 mi, onthe line are required to recalibrate remote potential and to verify actual pipe line potential, variations are added tothe actual potential to give the true pipe line value. The third electrode is positioned at a known Fixed distance from the close electrode and is com- pred tothe close electrode to give afield gradient value close tothe pipeline. is field gradient is used to compute the surface current ‘density on the line. The current density profile (green trace in Fig. 3), is invaluable in determining the condition of the Pipe line's CP system. The busy area near the center of the ‘race in Fig. 3 shows an area of coating damage (upward seen spikes) and shows increased current density at the ‘anodes (downward green spikes). Observation of the red trace in this area would barely show this damage, because the CP system is doing it's job in maintaining the pipe line at ‘a protected level. But the anodes inthis area will consume far ‘more quickly than other anodes on the line. The start of the line shows a couple of anodes working hard. This is because the riser is shorted to the platform. Also of interest is S fact that some anodes have ceased to function (m downward green spies), and have already been consumed, Itis this level of information that isrequited to truly diagnose the condition ofa pipe line’s CP and coating system. A com- parison of trailing wire data and multiple electrode data is shown in Fig. 4. Developing survey strategy, Obviously, it would make ‘sense to check CP levels onall new pipe lines during the past Ixy inspection, then forget about them, unless problems are found. For existing lines, it would make sense to rank them by age. $28 OFFSHORE Pipe Line Technology APL 1010 Fig. 5. Work cass ROY set up foppe ine survey wih pipe tracker cn front and ‘mal-lecrode CP probein manipulator arm. ‘The cost of performing a derailed close interval survey is uite high, as previously indicated. This is due to the array of sophisticated equipment which must be assembled to perform such a survey. A standard work class ROV equipped to survey ‘a buried pipelines shown in Fig, $. Using a dyzamically posi- tioned vessel is optimal, akhough any supply boat can boused, ‘Providing it has lateral thrusters. ‘The ROV should be a work class vehicle ideally, slthough smaller 25-hp vehicles have been used successfully. An active pine tracking system is needed, as well as a GPS position- ing system and ROY tracking system. All this in addition to the normal survey equipment So, spread cost is around ‘$25,000 to $30,000 for a 24-hr capability. Mobilization cost for such a spread usually is around $50,000 in the Gulf of “Mexico. Strategies employing consortiums will become more popular because of the shared costs, better equipment uti- lization, and improved equipment reliability that leads to higher survey efficiency. Combined surveys. The previously referenced mobiliza- tion costs and equipment day rate will come down with greater ‘equipment utilization Ifan ROV spread is needed to doa job, soe ifthe CP survey can be cost effectively combined. In this way the actual cost of gathering the CP information is reduced by an order of magnitude. ‘Standard risk-based inspection strategy works well to develop a survey program. This usualy results in a minimal amount of annua survey for any given operator, with significant improved peace of mind thatthe pipe line's CP system is preserving the integrity ofthe asset. ‘The author Jim Brtton's experience inthe corrosion contro! industy dates back to 1972. Since 1972, he has specialized in ofishore and marine corrosion con tro! projects. In 1906, he founded Deopwater Corrosion Serves. inc., which specializes in ‘engineering and consulting. Then in 1951, he founded interResources, Ine, which manutac F_| turers and sols corrosion control products he thas developed. He hoids a bacheler's degree in corrosion technol- ‘097 from the United Kingdom.