Metal Loss & Geometry Inspections

ROSEN
Final Inline Inspection Report

Metal Loss & Geometry Inspections
ROSEN Project Number 8-6200-11486
EXXON MOBIL INDONESIA

30” Gas Pipeline
NSO A Launcher Barrel - NSO Plant Receiver Barrel
Volume I
IP Inspections in January 2010

Client EXXON MOBIL INDONESIA Inspection Technologies
Contract Number n/a www.RosenInspection.net
Report Date March 26, 2010
ROSEN Project No. 8-6200-11486 Phone +61-8-9456-4855
ROSEN Line Name 30NSANSO Fax +61-8-9456-4811
Inspection Type CDP / EGP E-mail info@RosenInspection.net
Revision Number 0
38 - 40 Wittenberg Drive
Canning Vale, WA, 6155
PO Box 1679
Canning Vale, WA, 6970
Prepared by:
Khung (Sam) Foo (Data Analyst)
Checked by:
Harry Nomikoudis (Department Manager – Data Evaluation)
Approved by:
Neil Pain (Project Manager)
Date Pages Description Prepared by Checked by Approved by

A March 25, 2010 43 Draft for Review
B March 26, 2010 43 Submission
page 2
Date March 26, 2010
ROSEN Project No. 8-6200-11486
ROSEN Line Name 30NSANSO
Inspection Type CDP / EGP
Revision Number 0
1 | Introduction 5
2 | Management Summary 6
2.1 Pre-Inspection Activities 7

2.2 Internal Geometry Inspection (EGP) 7
2.3 Metal Loss Inspection (CDP) 7
2.4 Inspection Findings 8
2.5 List of Most Severe Anomalies 10
2.6 Metal Loss Anomaly Depth Graph 12
2.7 Orientation Plot 12
2.8 Conclusions 13
2.9 Recommendations 13
3 | ROSOFT 14
3.1 Introduction 14

3.2 Recommended Hardware Specification 14
3.3 Quick Install 14
4 | Pipeline Data 15
4.1 General Information 15

4.2 Line Questionnaire 15
5 | Field Work 16
5.1 Pre-Inspection Activities 16

5.2 Metal Loss Inspection 17
page 3
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
6 | Data Quality 19
6.1 General Comment 20

6.1.1 EGP 20
6.1.2 CDP 20
6.2 Sensor Loss and Tool Top Position 21
6.3 Velocity 21
6.3.1 EGP 21
6.3.2 CDP 21
6.4 Temperature 22
6.4.1 EGP 22
6.4.2 CDP 22
6.5 Magnetization CDP 22
7 | Inspection Specifications 23
7.1 Data Sheets 23

7.1.1 Cleaning and Gauging Pig (CLP) 23
7.1.2 Electronic Geometry Pig (EGP) 23
7.1.3 Corrosion Detection Pig (CDP) 23
7.2 Metal Loss Inspection Performance Specifications 24
8 | Attachments 26
8.1 Site Inspection Report 26

8.2 Preliminary Report 27
8.3 Inspection Verification Results 28
9 | ROSEN Australia Pty. Ltd. Performance Questionnaire 29
10 | Inspection Results 30
10.1 List of Anomalies 31

10.2 List of Clusters and Clustered Anomalies 33
10.3 List of Components 34
10.4 List of Markers 36
10.5 Special Graphs 37
10.5.1 ERF Distribution Graphs 37
10.5.2 Pressure Graph 37
10.5.3 Sentenced Anomaly Plots 38
10.5.4 Metal Loss Graphs 39
10.5.5 Anomaly Relative to closest Weld Distance Plot 39
10.6 Special POF Statistics 40
10.6.1 Summary Tables 40
10.6.2 POF Histograms 41
10.6.3 Anomaly Orientation relative to closest Girth Weld 41
10.7 Individually Sentenced Anomaly Reports (ISAR’s) 42
10.8 Pipe Tally 43
Appendix
page 4
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
1 | Introduction
This report describes the pipeline inspection carried out by ROSEN in the 30 inch
102.25 km Gas Pipeline from NSO A Launcher Barrel to NSO Plant Receiver Barrel in
January 2010.
The inspection activities included the following:

Tool Setup and Preparation
Cleaning and Gauging with ROSEN BIDI Pigs (CLP’s)
Geometry Inspection with the ROSEN Electronic Geometry Pig (EGP)
Metal Loss Inspection with the ROSEN Corrosion Detection Pig (CDP)
Preparation and Elaboration of a Final Report including Implementation of the
Inspection results in ROSOFT for Pipelines
A summarized management conclusion is described in section 2, ‘Management

Summary’.
In general, the format of this Inspection Report is in line with the 'Specifications and
Requirements for Intelligent Pig Inspection of Pipelines, Version 3.2', as subscribed by
the members of the Pipeline Operator Forum (hereafter referred to as 'POF').
The inspection results in detail are given in section 10, ‘Inspection Results’.
We hereby would like to take the opportunity to thank EXXON MOBIL INDONESIA for
the assistance and co-operation received during the course of this project.
Note A summary of all abbreviations used is given in the Appendix ‘Terms and Definitions’.
page 5
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
2 | Management Summary
Section 2 of this report describes the general condition of the inspected pipeline. For more
detailed findings please refer to section 10, ‘Inspection Results’.
The data recorded during the inspection was checked in several independent steps for
completeness and quality.
The data is automatically searched for all pipeline components and anomalies. This is
achieved utilizing the ROSEN Automated Feature Search Software (AFS). Thereafter,
evaluation personnel interactively verify the results. All results are stored in database
files (.dbf).
All anomalies recorded and detected above the reporting threshold (see section 2.3,
‘Metal Loss Inspection’) are listed in this report.
In the event of single corrosion anomalies in close proximity to one another, interaction
rules may apply and the anomalies are clustered in accordance with the specifications.
The coordinates of the cluster refer to the start point of the cluster, the depth of the
cluster refers to the max. anomaly depth in the cluster. A description of the clustering
routine and a graphic description of the cluster coordinates as well as details about the
classification of anomalies are given in the Appendix, ‘Terms and Definitions’.
All distances are given in meters [m]. Upstream distances are signed with a minus sign
(-), whilst downstream distances have no sign. All anomalies are referenced to the
upstream girth weld.
The recorded CDP centre distance of the first valve in the launcher station has been set
to 0.001 m and is used as a reference distance. Please note that the recorded distance
has been adapted to the 2005 inspection log distance.
Specifications and definitions are given in section 7, ‘Inspection Specifications’.
page 6
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
2.1 Pre-Inspection Activities

Prior to the inspection the line was cleaned and gauged with ROSEN BIDI Pigs (CLP’s).
2.2 Internal Geometry Inspection (EGP)

The internal geometry of the pipeline has been inspected using the ROSEN Electronic
Geometry Pig (EGP). It was concluded that the line had no geometric anomalies
exceeding the reporting level of 2 % ID reduction. For further information regarding EGP
data quality, please refer to section 6.1.1, ‘EGP’.
2.3 Metal Loss Inspection (CDP)

The inspection results are summarized in the following sections.
The reporting threshold was set as follows:
for ‘joint’ anomalies (J): ≥ 10 % wall loss

for ‘close to girth weld’ anomalies (C): ≥ 10 % wall loss
for ‘girth weld’ anomalies (W): ≥ 10 % wall loss
For detailed information, including information about any restrictions, please refer to section
6, ‘Data Quality’ and section 10, ‘Inspection Results’.
Note A differentiation between internal and non-internal has been performed for all metal loss
anomalies. For all other non metal loss anomalies recorded in weld areas (Heat Affected
Zone - HAZ), distinctions may not be provided. Furthermore, it should be noted that mid-
wall anomalies may be classified as ‘non-internal’.
For all anomalies caused by corrosion an Estimated Repair Factor (ERF) has been
calculated in accordance with ASME B31G Code. The formula used is given in the
Appendix ‘Terms and Definitions’.
page 7
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
2.4 Inspection Findings
Metal Loss Anomalies

Important findings of the CDP inspection:
Corrosion Anomalies (ANOM-CORR):

Anomaly Total Corrosion Anomalies
Depth Surface Location
INT NON-INT N/A
≥ 60 % 0 0 0 0
40 – 59 % 0 0 0 0
20 – 39 % 0 0 0 0
10 – 19 % 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0
Non-Corrosion Metal Loss Anomalies:

Anomaly Total Non – Corrosion Anomalies
Depth Surface Location
INT NON-INT N/A
≥ 60 % 0 0 0 0
40 – 59 % 0 0 0 0
20 – 39 % 1 1 0 0
10 – 19 % 78 78 0 0
Total 79 79 0 0
All Metal Loss Anomalies:

Anomaly Total
Depth
≥ 60 % 0
40 – 59 % 0
20 – 39 % 1
10 – 19 % 78
Total 79
Number of metal loss anomalies with ERF ≥ 1 0

Number of metal loss anomalies ≥ 80 % 0
page 8
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
Anomalies without depth calculation

Number of girth weld anomalies (ANOM-GWAN) 6
Number of laminations (ANOM-LAMI) 0
Number of longitudinal weld anomalies (ANOM-LWAN) 0
Number of milling anomalies (ANOM-MILL) 2
Number of spiral weld anomalies (ANOM-SWAN) 0
Number of spiral weld irregularities (ANOM-SWIR) 0
Number of repaired anomalies (ANOM-REPA) 0
Other anomalies (ANOM-OTHER) 0
Total 8
Geometric anomalies
Number of dents with an ID reduction ≥ 1 % and < 2 % 0
Number of dents with an ID reduction ≥ 2 % and < 6 % 0
Number of dents with an ID reduction ≥ 6 % 0
Number of ovalities ≥ 1 % and < 2 % 0
Number of ovalities ≥ 2 % and < 6 % 0
Number of ovalities ≥ 6 % 0
Others w/o calculation 0
Total 0
Components
Valves 5
Tees/offtakes 22
Others (flange, supports, fixtures, sleeves etc.) 1,812
Total 1,839
page 9
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
2.5 List of Most Severe Anomalies

The following list shows the most severe metal loss anomalies limited to a maximum
number of 25 anomalies. These anomalies have been selected in accordance with the
following priority rules:
Rule 1 Anomalies with peak depth greater than or equal to 80% wall loss
Rule 2 Anomalies with ERF greater than or equal to 1
Rule 3 Anomalies with ERF greater than or equal to 0.95 and less than 1.0
Rule 4 Anomalies with peak depth greater than or equal to 20% and less than 80%
The list includes the following information:
Reference information
log distance downstream of the tool launcher [m]
upstream weld log distance in [m]
joint length in [m]
Anomaly information
anomaly identification
anomaly dimension classification
o’clock position [hh:mm]
assigned or calculated wall thickness in [mm]
anomaly length in [mm]
anomaly width in [mm]
max. depth in [%] of actual wall thickness
average depth in [%] of actual wall thickness
surface location [internaI (INT) / non-internal (NON-INT) / not applicable (N/A)]
ERF (Estimated Repair Factor)
comment
location classification (location. class.) of the upstream edge of the anomaly rectangle
− W = on weld (± 0.025)
− C = close to weld (± 0.025 - 0.3 m)
− J = in joint
cluster type
− [X] = clustered
− [–] = single anomaly
cluster ID
Note In case that single corrosion anomalies within a cluster have a different internal / non-
internal distinction (combination of internal and external corrosion at the same location), the
‘CLUSTER’ will be set according to the cluster relevant anomaly.
The weld location indicators are calculated using the coordinates of the upstream edge
of the anomaly rectangle.
For details on anomaly descriptions please refer to the Appendix ‘Terms and
Definitions’.
page 10
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
Abbreviations possibly used in the ’List of Most Severe Anomalies’:

Anomaly Identification
BUCK buckle
CORR corrosion
COCL corrosion cluster
DENT dent
GOUG gouging
GWAN girth weld anomaly
LAMI lamination
LWAN longitudinal weld anomaly
LWCR longitudinal weld crack anomaly
MIAN pipe mill anomaly
OVAL ovality
SCC stress corrosion cracking
SWCR spiral weld crack anomaly
SWAN spiral weld anomaly
WRIN wrinkle
Dime. (dimension)
AXGR axial grooving
AXSL axial slotting
CIGR circumferential grooving
CISL circumferential slotting
GENE general
PINH pinhole
PITT pitting
page 11
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
2.6 Metal Loss Anomaly Depth Graph

This graph includes all metal loss anomalies detected, exceeding the reporting
threshold. It shows the number of anomalies versus section length.
The metal loss anomalies are grouped into four (4) categories as follows:
depth 10 – 19 % ‘light’ metal loss

depth 20 – 39 % ‘medium’ metal loss
depth 40 – 59 % ‘severe’ metal loss
depth ≥ 60 % ‘most severe’ metal loss
2.7 Orientation Plot

This plot shows the o'clock orientation of all detected anomalies versus pipeline length.
The o'clock position is given as the earliest edge of the anomalies rectangle in the
downstream direction of the pipeline (see the Appendix ‘Terms and Definitions’).
page 12
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
2.8 Conclusions
The Metal Loss and Geometry Inspections were successfully completed.
In total, 79 metal loss indications classified as pipe mill anomalies (ANOM-MIAN) with a
calculated wall loss ≥ 10 % have been reported.
In addition, six (6) girth weld anomalies (ANOM-GWAN) have been observed. These
indications may possibly be caused by girth weld anomalies such as lack of penetration,
lack of fusion or minor misalignment, etc. In addition, the accuracy of metal loss anomalies
reported close to the girth weld may be reduced due to the HAZ of the girth welds.
Furthermore, two (2) milling anomalies (ANOM-MILL) have also been observed and are
reported without wall loss calculations.
Additionally, no geometric anomalies exceeding the reporting level of 2% ID reduction

have been observed in the geometry inspection.
For further details please refer to section 2.4 ‘Inspection Findings’ and section 10,
‘Inspection Results’.
2.9 Recommendations
As far as can be concluded from this metal loss inspection, further investigation should
be considered for anomalies listed in section 2.5. ‘List of Most Severe Anomalies’.
Whether additional metal loss control measurements are required, could only be
determined by comparison with previous inspections and operational history.
All feedback from site investigations would be highly appreciated.
page 13
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
3 | ROSOFT
3.1 Introduction
ROSOFT, a client software developed by ROSEN (RTRC), gives comprehensive
information of all the inspection results. It can assist an operator in planning of
maintenance and repair action. The software delivered to the client with the final report,
offers complete access to all database results.
3.2 Recommended Hardware Specification

A workstation / laptop with the following hardware specifications is recommended to use for
ROSOFT:
Processor ≥ 2 GHZ, P4
HDD ≥ 80GB
Memory ≥ 1024 MB
Graphic Adapter ≥ 256 MB
Display Resolution ≥ 1024 x 768
DVD-Drive
Note Databases including high amount of anomalies or high-end ROSOFT implementations (e.g.
3D visualization) require significant higher system resources.
3.3 Quick Install

A description on how to install ROSOFT Data Management (v 6.61) is provided. After
starting the setup file (.exe), ROSOFT will guide you through the installation process.
The installation program automatically transfers the program and database files in the
correct directory structure onto the computer hard drive. The on-line help function will
assist to solve problems in handling the program.
page 14
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
4 | Pipeline Data
This data is based on information as received from the client prior to the inspection.
4.1 General Information
nominal diameter 30 inch

type of pipe longitudinal
grade API 5L X65
wall thickness nominal 15.88 mm (main) / 23.83 mm
MAOP 6.89 MPa (1,000 PSI)
Design Pressure 6.89 MPa (1,000 PSI)
SMYS 448 MPa (65,000)
SUTS 530 MPa (77,000)
minimum bend radius 5.0 D
length 102.25 km
built in 1998
pipeline product (during run) gas
inspection history ROSEN 2005
4.2 Line Questionnaire

The ‘Pipeline Questionnaire’ is attached hereafter.
page 15
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
5 | Field Work
5.1 Pre-Inspection Activities

Prior to the inspection with the CDP tool, the line was cleaned and gauged with ROSEN
BIDI Pigs (CLP’s). The following BIDI tools were used:
CLP-30-MBD-LG
CLP-30-MBD-LBM
The following run was performed:
tool type Date / start Date / end finding

CLP-30-MBD-LG 20-Jan-2010 20-Jan-2010 Received in good condition with
12:00 h 15:41 h minimal debris and no damage
to gauge plate.
CLP-30-MBD-LBM 21-Jan-2010 21-Jan-2010 Received in good condition with
10:00 h 13:41 h minimal debris of approximately
100g of sludge.
It was concluded that the line had no geometric obstructions preventing the EGP / CDP.
For further details, please refer to correspondence.
page 16
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
5.2 Internal Geometry Inspection

The internal geometry inspection of the line was performed with the ROSEN Geometry
Pig (EGP). Detailed information of the tool is given under section 7.1, ‘Inspection
Specifications’.
One (1) EGP run was performed during the inspection.
The fieldwork was performed by ROSEN Inspection Engineers C.Sheppard and

K. Sentosa.
Tool and personnel were mobilized on January 15, 2010. Fieldwork was finalized on
January 25, 2010.
For details about data quality please refer to section 6, ‘Data Quality’.
For details about inspection conditions and recorded data please refer to the following data.
Inspection Conditions
Inspection Direction NSO A Launcher Barrel to NSO Plant Receiver
Barrel
Launching Date/Time January 22, 2010 / 09:15 h
Receiving Date/Time January 22, 2010 / 17:55 h
Duration incl. Tool Stops 8 h 40 mins
Average Velocity 3.36 m/s
Propellant gas
Pressure (max.) 5.36 MPa
Temperature (max.) 36.3 °C
Tool Condition after Run

Cup Wear minimal
Debris minimal
Damage none
Recorded Data
Start of Data Recording - 3.643 m
End of Data Recording 102,068.847 m
Minimum Velocity 2.17 m/s
Maximum Velocity 7.29 m/s
Note To enable a comparison of EGP and CDP data, the EGP distance recorded was adapted to
the CDP distance.
page 17
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
5.3 Metal Loss Inspection

The pipeline was inspected with the ROSEN Corrosion Detection Pig. Detailed
information of the inspection performance is given under section 7, ‘Inspection
Specifications’
One (1) CDP run was performed during inspection.
The fieldwork was performed by ROSEN Inspection Engineers C.Sheppard and

K. Sentosa.
Tool and personnel were mobilized on January 15, 2010. Fieldwork was finalized on
January 25, 2010.
For details about data quality please refer to section 6., ‘Data Quality’.
For details about inspection conditions and recorded data please refer to the following data.
Inspection Conditions
Inspection Direction NSO A Launcher Barrel to NSO Plant Receiver
Barrel
Launching Date/Time January 24, 2010 / 13:13 h
Receiving Date/Time January 25, 2010 / 03:00 h
Duration incl. Tool Stops 13 h 47 mins
Average Velocity 2.08 m/s
Propellant gas
Pressure (max.) 5.36 MPa
Temperature E-Unit (max.) 37.8 °C
Tool Condition after Run

Cup Wear light wear
Debris none
Damage damage to 12 sensors due to MLT at receiver not
being closed.
Recorded Data
Start of Data Recording - 3.643 m
End of Data Recording 102,068.847 m
Minimum Velocity 0.00 m/s (including tool stops)
Maximum Velocity 4.00 m/s
Recorded Rotation minimal
page 18
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
6 | Data Quality
The following pages are an overview of the quality of data recorded during the tool
run(s). Data quality is dependent on the specifications given for the tool used. These
specifications are given in section 7, ‘Inspection Specifications’. Furthermore, the
quality can be affected by the type of the pipe (grade, etc.) and the number of sensors
damaged during the run.
Note In case of different type of tools used, the information collected with the CDP tool were used
as master information, relevant e.g. for distance adaptation, definition of installation type
etc..
page 19
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
6.1 General Comment

6.1.1 EGP
The complete line was inspected in one (1) run.
The tool velocity during the run was mainly within the pre-agreed ranges. Generally, in
areas where the velocity is out of range, the ROSEN standard accuracy may not be
achieved. In addition, data quality may be reduced in areas where tool vibrations were
observed.
To enable a comparison of EGP and CDP data, the EGP distance recorded was
adapted to the CDP distance.
6.1.2 CDP
The complete line was inspected in one (1) run.
All measuring channels, both primary and secondary, functioned properly and the data
recorded is of good quality and complete, except for four (4) primary sensor channels
that failed for the entire run, resulting in 0.70 % primary sensor loss.
Over the complete line length, the standard magnetization values of 10 – 30 kA/m were
achieved. In general, areas where the standard magnetization level was not achieved,
the ROSEN standard accuracy may be reduced.
The tool velocity during the run was within the pre-agreed ranges. Generally, in areas
where the velocity is out of range, the ROSEN standard accuracy may not be achieved.
To facilitate future comparisons, the recorded log distance was adapted to the 2005
ROSEN (CDP) inspection log distance.
For further details please refer to section 6.3.2, ‘Velocity CDP’ and section
6.5, ‘Magnetization CDP’.
page 20
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
6.2 Sensor Loss and Tool Top Position

This graph shows the sensor loss during the inspection and the rotational position of the
tool relative to the 12 o’clock position of the pipe.
Four (4) primary sensor channels failed for the entire run, resulting in 0.70 % primary
sensor loss.
In addition, the tool rotation was minimal.
The rotational tool position is given in degrees and counter clockwise measured in the
downstream direction.
6.3 Velocity
6.3.1 EGP
The EGP velocity during the inspection is constantly recorded. On basis of the velocity
information, the minimum and maximum velocity versus the pipeline length is calculated
in sampling intervals and can be seen on the following velocity graph.
The EGP tool was programmed to operate within the following velocity range:
0.1 – 5.3 m/s
In all areas where the velocity is out of range the ROSEN standard accuracy might not
be achieved.
6.3.2 CDP
On basis of the CDP velocity information recorded, the minimum and maximum velocity
has been calculated per joint. The velocity graph shows these values versus pipeline
length.
The contractually agreed velocity range for this tool was:
min. velocity 0.5 m/s

max. velocity 5.0 m/s
max. acceleration 3.0 m/s2
In all areas where the velocity is out of range the ROSEN standard accuracy might not
be achieved.
page 21
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
6.4 Temperature
6.4.1 EGP
This plot shows the temperature versus pipeline length during the EGP run.
The temperature probe is positioned inside the EGP electronic unit. It takes approx. 30
minutes before the temperature probe actually measures the temperature of the internal
EGP electronic unit.
6.4.2 CDP
This plot shows the internal tool temperature versus pipeline length during the CDP run,
listed per joint.
The temperature probe is positioned inside the CDP electronic unit. It takes
approximately 30 minutes before the temperature probe actually measures the
temperature of the internal CDP electronic unit.
6.5 Magnetization CDP

This graph shows the magnetization level on the pipe wall during the inspection,
measured per joint.
The minimum and maximum standard values for the magnetization level to keep the
claimed specifications should be between 10 kA/m to 30 kA/m. (see section 7,
‘Inspection Specifications’).
page 22
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
7 | Inspection Specifications
7.1 Data Sheets

7.1.1 Cleaning and Gauging Pig (CLP)
The standard data sheets for the ROSEN BIDI tools used during the inspection are
attached hereafter.
7.1.2 Electronic Geometry Pig (EGP)

The standard data sheet for the ROSEN EGP 30”1½DbT tool used during the inspection
is attached hereafter.
7.1.3 Corrosion Detection Pig (CDP)

The standard data sheet for the ROSEN CDP 30-32”1½DuS tool used during the
inspection is attached hereafter.
page 23
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
7.2 Geometry Performance Specifications

The ‘Geometry Performance Specifications’ are attached hereafter.
page 24
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
7.3 Metal Loss Inspection Performance Specifications

The ‘Metal Loss Inspection Performance Specifications’ are attached hereafter.
page 25
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
8 | Attachments
8.1 Site Inspection Report

The ‘Onsite Reports’ are attached overleaf.
page 26
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
8.2 Preliminary Report

A ‘ Preliminary Report’ with information on the data recorded was supplied to
EXXON MOBIL INDONESIA attention Dhian Ekawati by ROSEN Data Analyst Khung
(Sam) Foo on March 15, 2010.
page 27
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
8.3 Inspection Verification Results

Up to date, ‘no 'Inspection Verification Results’ have been received.
page 28
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
9 | ROSEN Australia Pty. Ltd. Performance Questionnaire
As part of our ‘Quality Assurance’ system, we would appreciate you completing the
enclosed questionnaire regarding our inspection services. For us it is important that we
stay informed of our customers’ degree of satisfaction. Your valuable answers to our
questionnaire will allow us to improve our inspection services of the pipeline owner.
page 29
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
10 | Inspection Results
The results of the inspection are presented in different formats:
Listing
Individually Sentenced Anomaly Reports (ISAR’s)
Graphs
Pipe Tally
All distances are expressed in meters [m]. Upstream distances are signed with a minus
(-), downstream distances have no sign. All anomalies are referenced to the
upstream girth weld.
The CDP centre distance of the first valve in the launcher station has been set to
0.001 m, and is used as a reference distance. Please note that the recorded distance
has been adapted to the 2005 inspection log distance.
Any anomaly or pipeline feature that does not qualify for ROSEN Metal Loss
Performance Specifications due to its geometry, location, or run conditions is provided
for informational purposes only.
Furthermore, the accuracy of calculated anomaly dimensions in weld -,

component -, bend areas and for anomalies under additional metal / material like
external supports, casings, etc. is restricted.
For further details please refer to section 7.3, ‘Metal Loss Inspection Performance
Specifications’ and Appendix ‘Terms and Definitions’.
page 30
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
10.1 List of Anomalies

This list includes the results of all inspection runs performed in the pipeline. The
recorded CDP distance is used as reference.
The ‘List of Anomalies’ contains all anomalies detected and all anomalies classified as
metal loss with a calculated wall loss above the reporting threshold.
In the event of single anomalies in close proximity to one another, interaction rules may
apply and the anomalies were clustered in accordance with specification. The
coordinates of the cluster refer to the start point of the cluster, the depth of the cluster
refers to the max. anomaly depth in the cluster.
The list includes the following information:
Reference information
log distance downstream of the tool launcher [m]
upstream weld log distance in [m]
joint length in [m]
Anomaly information
anomaly identification
anomaly dimension classification
o’clock position [hh:mm]
assigned or calculated wall thickness in [mm]
anomaly length in [mm]
anomaly width in [mm]
max. depth in [%] of actual wall thickness
surface location [internaI (INT) / non-internal (NON-INT) / not applicable (N/A)]
ERF (Estimated Repair Factor)
comment
location classification (location. class.) of the upstream edge of the feature rectangle
− W = on weld (± 0.025 m)
− C = close to weld (± 0.025 m - 0.3 m)
− J = in joint
cluster type
− [X] = clustered
− [–] = single feature
Note In case that single corrosion anomalies within a cluster have a different internal / non-
internal distinction (combination of internal and external corrosion at the same location), the
‘CLUSTER’ will be set according to the cluster relevant anomaly.
The weld location indicators are calculated using the coordinates of the upstream edge
of the anomaly rectangle.
For details on anomaly descriptions please refer to the Appendix ‘Terms and
Definitions’.
page 31
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
Abbreviations possibly used in the ’List of Anomalies’:

Anomaly Identification
ANOM anomaly
BUCK buckle
COCL corrosion cluster
CORR corrosion
DEML dent with metal loss
DENT dent
GOUG gouging
GWAN girth weld anomaly
LAMI lamination
LWAN longitudinal weld anomaly
LWCR longitudinal weld crack anomaly
MELO metal loss anomalies
MIAN pipe mill anomaly
MILL milling anomaly
OVAL ovality
REPA repaired anomaly
SWCR spiral weld crack anomaly
SWAN spiral weld anomaly
WRIN wrinkle
Dime. (dimension)
AXGR axial grooving
AXSL axial slotting
CIGR circumferential grooving
CISL circumferential slotting
GENE general
PINH pinhole
PITT pitting
page 32
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
10.2 List of Clusters and Clustered Anomalies

No metal loss anomalies have been clustered, therefore this list is inapplicable.
page 33
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
10.3 List of Components

All components, which were detected during the inspection, are listed on the following
page(s). If possible, component types and descriptions are specified.
The components, which are expected to be easily referenced above ground were used
for reference information.
The ‘List of Components’ includes the following components information:

log distance downstream of tool launcher in [m]
component type
component identification
o’clock orientation [hh:mm]
References:
distance to closest reference component in [m]
reference log distance in [m]
reference type
distance to closest marker in [m]
marker log distance in [m]
marker type / name
comments (if any)
Reference information is provided to enable the localization of detected components.
page 34
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
Abbreviations possibly used in the ‘List of Components’:

Component Type
ANOD anode
CASB casing begin
CASE casing end
CLAM clamp
CPCO CP connection
ESUP external support
PGSI pig signal
REPA repaired
WELD girth weld
Component Identification
BENE bend end
BENB bend begin
CHWT change in wall thickness
INAB installation area begin
INAE installation area end
ISJB iso joint begin
ISJE iso joint end
LAUB launcher begin
LAUE launcher end
OTHB other repair begin
OTHE other repair end
RECB receiver begin
RECE receiver end
WSLB welded sleeve begin
WSLE welded sleeve end
page 35
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
10.4 List of Markers

Not applicable.
page 36
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
10.5 Special Graphs

10.5.1 ERF Distribution Graphs
This plot indicates all metal loss anomalies for which an ERF has been calculated. In
this graph the anomalies are displayed versus line distance in five (5) different groups:
ERF < 0.60

0.60 ≤ ERF < 0.80
0.80 ≤ ERF < 0.90
0.90 ≤ ERF < 1.00
ERF ≥ 1.00
The ERF calculation has been made according to ASME B31G Code.
Following the ASME B31G Code, an ERF calculation has been performed for metal loss
anomalies that have been identified as being caused by corrosion. For all other
anomalies no ERF values have been calculated.
Note No metal loss anomalies have been identified as being caused by corrosion, therefore this
graph is inapplicable.
For more detailed information please refer to Appendix ‘Terms and Definitions’
10.5.2 Pressure Graph

Beside the ‘Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP)’ and ‘Design Pressure
(Pdes)’ this graph shows the ‘Theoretical Defect Failure Pressure (TDFP)’, calculated on
basis of ASME B31G Code.
MAOP
ERF =
TDFP
For values where the TDFP lies below the MAOP, the ERF value is greater than 1.
The following values have been used for calculation as delivered by the client:
MAOP: 6.89 MPa (1,000 PSI)

Design Pressure: 6.89 MPa (1,000 PSI)
The ERF value for undamaged pipes is:
MAOP 6.89
× 0.909 = × 0.909 = 0.909
Pdesign 6.89
page 37
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
10.5.3 Sentenced Anomaly Plots

The graph indicates the metal loss anomalies for which an ERF has been calculated.
The graph has been performed following the ASME B31G Code, based on the minimum
nominal wall thickness (t) of 15.88 mm.
The following values have been used for calculation, as delivered by the client:
MAOP: 6.89 MPa (1,000 PSI)

Design Pressure: 6.89 MPa (1,000 PSI)
Based on Barlow’s formula and the information provided, the calculated safety factor
below has been utilised to produce this graph.
OD x Pdesign
Design factor =
2 x SMYS x t
1
Safety factor =
design factor
The above values can be changed for customised calculations within ROSOFT.
page 38
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
10.5.4 Metal Loss Graphs

ROSEN provides several anomaly graphs to have a quick overview on the metal loss
distribution over the whole length of the pipeline. The graphs show all metal loss
anomalies for which an internal/non-internal distinction was made, versus pipeline
distance. The o'clock position is given as looking downstream the pipeline.
Distribution of Internal Metal Loss Anomalies

Distribution of Non-Internal Metal Loss Anomalies not applicable
Orientation of Internal Metal Loss Anomalies
Orientation of Non-Internal Metal Loss Anomalies not applicable
Note No metal loss anomalies have been detected as non-internal, therefore these graphs are
inapplicable.
10.5.5 Anomaly Relative to closest Weld Distance Plot

This plot shows the relative distances of all detected anomalies to the closest girth weld
versus pipeline length.
page 39
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
10.6 Special POF Statistics

10.6.1 Summary Tables
Number of metal loss anomalies listed according to surface location

internal 79
non-internal 0
n/a 0
Number of metal loss anomalies listed according to dimension

general anomalies 1
pit 6
axial groove 5
circumferential groove 1
pinhole 32
axial slotting 33
circumferential slotting 1
Total 79
Number of metal loss anomalies listed according to depth

0 - 9% n/a
10 - 19% 78
20 - 29% 1
30 - 39% 0
40 - 49% 0
50 - 59% 0
60 - 69% 0
70 - 79% 0
80 - 89% 0
90 - 100% 0
Number of metal loss anomalies listed according to ERF value

ERF < 0.60 0
0.60 ≤ ERF < 0.80 0
0.80 ≤ ERF < 0.90 0
0.90 ≤ ERF < 1.00 0
ERF ≥ 1.00 0
Note An ERF value has been calculated for all anomalies caused by corrosion calculated with
wall loss ≥ 10% and < 80%.
page 40
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
10.6.2 POF Histograms

All POF Histograms show the number of metal loss anomalies versus pipeline length in
500 m sections.
Distribution of All Metal Loss Anomalies

Metal Loss Anomalies with Depth < 40 %
Metal Loss Anomalies with Depth ≥ 40 % - < 60 % not applicable
Metal Loss Anomalies with Depth ≥ 60 % - < 80 % not applicable
Metal Loss Anomalies with Depth ≥ 80 % not applicable
Metal Loss Anomalies with ERF ≥ 0.8 - < 1.0 not applicable
Metal Loss Anomalies with ERF ≥ 1.0 not applicable
Note No metal loss anomalies have been detected with depth ≥ 40 % or ERF ≥ 0.8, therefore
these graphs are inapplicable.
10.6.3 Anomaly Orientation relative to closest Girth Weld

This plot shows the o’clock position of all metal loss anomalies as a function of relative
distance to the closest girth weld.
page 41
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
10.7 Individually Sentenced Anomaly Reports (ISAR’s)

Each ISAR includes the following:
• Weld and Anomaly Location Sheet
• Data Plots
− Overview Plot of the affected Pipe Joint (complete circumference, 1:150)

− Detail Plot of the Anomaly (1:10)
One (1) ISAR has been prepared following the ‘List of Most Severe Anomalies’,
described under section 2.5, sorted by severity then log distance.
Data Plot
The data charts can be read as follows:
Left
• Distance in [mm] starting at 12 o’clock position looking downstream and measured
counter clockwise
• O’clock position looking downstream
Bottom
• Distance measurement [m]
Additional Information
In case of clustered anomalies, the upstream edge of the anomaly rectangle is given as
(start) log distance. Please find below following additional information:
Anomaly No. 1
Log distance 39,058.282 m
O‘clock position 10:28 h
Type / Classification pipe mill anomaly
Length / Width 18 mm x 16 mm
Maximum Calculated WL 27 %
Calculated ERF n/a
Internal / non-internal internal
Comments Possible longitudinal weld anomaly.
page 42
Date March 26, 2010
Revision Number 0
10.8 Pipe Tally

A pipe tally of the complete pipeline is part of this report.
Please refer to a separate binder ‘Pipe Tally’, Volume II.
page 43

Metal Loss &amp; Geometry Inspections

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Metal Loss &amp; Geometry Inspections

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ROSEN

Final Inline Inspection Report

EXXON MOBIL INDONESIA

IP Inspections in January 2010

Date Pages Description Prepared by Checked by Approved by

2.1 Pre-Inspection Activities 7

3.1 Introduction 14

4 | Pipeline Data 15

4.1 General Information 15

5 | Field Work 16

5.1 Pre-Inspection Activities 16

6 | Data Quality 19

6.1 General Comment 20

7 | Inspection Specifications 23

7.1 Data Sheets 23

8.1 Site Inspection Report 26

9 | ROSEN Australia Pty. Ltd. Performance Questionnaire 29

10 | Inspection Results 30

10.1 List of Anomalies 31

The inspection activities included the following:

A summarized management conclusion is described in section 2, ‘Management

Specifications and definitions are given in section 7, ‘Inspection Specifications’.

2.1 Pre-Inspection Activities

2.2 Internal Geometry Inspection (EGP)

2.3 Metal Loss Inspection (CDP)

The reporting threshold was set as follows:

for ‘joint’ anomalies (J): ≥ 10 % wall loss

2.4 Inspection Findings

Metal Loss Anomalies

Corrosion Anomalies (ANOM-CORR):

Non-Corrosion Metal Loss Anomalies:

All Metal Loss Anomalies:

Number of metal loss anomalies with ERF ≥ 1 0

Anomalies without depth calculation

2.5 List of Most Severe Anomalies

The list includes the following information:

Abbreviations possibly used in the ’List of Most Severe Anomalies’:

2.6 Metal Loss Anomaly Depth Graph

depth 10 – 19 % ‘light’ metal loss

2.7 Orientation Plot

Additionally, no geometric anomalies exceeding the reporting level of 2% ID reduction

All feedback from site investigations would be highly appreciated.

3.2 Recommended Hardware Specification

3.3 Quick Install

4.1 General Information

nominal diameter 30 inch

4.2 Line Questionnaire

5.1 Pre-Inspection Activities

The following run was performed:

tool type Date / start Date / end finding

For further details, please refer to correspondence.

5.2 Internal Geometry Inspection

One (1) EGP run was performed during the inspection.

The fieldwork was performed by ROSEN Inspection Engineers C.Sheppard and

Tool Condition after Run

5.3 Metal Loss Inspection

One (1) CDP run was performed during inspection.

The fieldwork was performed by ROSEN Inspection Engineers C.Sheppard and

Tool Condition after Run

6.1 General Comment

6.2 Sensor Loss and Tool Top Position

In addition, the tool rotation was minimal.

0.1 – 5.3 m/s

The contractually agreed velocity range for this tool was:

Metal Loss & Geometry Inspections

Metal Loss & Geometry Inspections

Distribution of Internal Metal Loss Anomalies

Distribution of All Metal Loss Anomalies