Applying Non-Traditional ILI Technology to Challenging

Applying Non-Traditional ILI Technology to Challenging Pipeline

Segments for Transmission Integrity Management

American Gas Association Operations Conference & Biennial Exhibition

May 19-22, Grapevine, Texas

Robert Liddicoat, Lead Project Manager, GTS

Jeff Janvier, Manager, Transmission Integrity Management Engineering, Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Rod Lee, General Manager, Pipetel Technologies Inc.

Presentation Overview

Todays Presentation will Discuss:

1. What is a Non-Traditional In Line Inspection (NT ILI)?

2. Importance of Non-Traditional ILI to PG&E’s Transmission Integrity Management Program

3. Examples of Challenging Pipeline Segments where Non-Traditional ILI has Proven Effective

4. A Detailed Inspection Profile: 20” OD Creek Crossing with Pipetel Explorer 20/26 Robotic MFL Crawler

5. Outlook For Future Use & Conclusions

2

1. What is a Non-Traditional In Line Inspection?

3

What Is Non-Traditional ILI?

• Non-Traditional ILI = Performing internal inspection of pipelines considered challenging or unpractical to inspect using traditional free-swimming ILI tools

• Non-traditional ILI use: • Integrity management inspections of targeted

locations • Identifying / locating internal pipeline features

4

“Challenging to Inspect”

Non-Traditional ILI Methods

5

Non-Destructive Examination (NDE) Technology • Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL)

• Electro Magnetic Acoustic Transducer (EMAT)

• Video

• Laser Deformation

• Ultrasonic (UT)

• Eddy Current Delivery Platforms


6

Delivery Platforms • Tethered Robotic


7

Delivery Platforms • Untethered Robotic


8

Delivery Platforms • Tethered MFL (non-robotic)


9

Delivery Platforms • Tethered MFL (non-robotic)


10

Delivery Platforms • Free-Swimming Tools Deployed at Targeted Locations

2. Importance of Non-Traditional ILI to PG&E’s Transmission

Integrity Management Program

11

Importance of NT ILI to PG&E’s TIMP

Overview • 2012 – 2014: 15 projects conducted, often to meet

inspection deadlines when Direct Assessment (DA) methods were infeasible or impractical

• Beginning in 2015: NT ILI Program to inspect: o Short pipeline segments in High Consequence Areas (HCA) o Casings with known hard contacts o Sections of inserted pipe o Highway crossings

• Ability to inspect targeted high-priority locations not feasible or practical with traditional ILI technology

12

3. Examples of Challenging Pipeline Segments where Non-

Traditional ILI has Proven Effective

13

Segments where NT ILI has Proven Effective

Breakdown by Project Type

14

Project Type PG&E TIMP NT ILI

Projects 2012 - 2014 • Waterway crossings 8 • Cased spans 2 • Constructability 5

Total 15

Waterway Crossing Overview

• Challenges for Direct Assessment o Long-lead permitting (environmental / jurisdictional) o Construction (practicality / cost) o Maintaining public infrastructure & water supply (canals)

• Key Considerations o Entry point planning to avoid environmentally sensitive areas o Restrictive bends and bend combinations o Low points in pipeline subject to liquid accumulation

15

Waterway Crossing Tool Selection

16

Execution Method Quantity Pipeline Diameter

Untethered Robotic 3 10”, 12”, 20” Tethered Robotic 3 12”, 30”, 36” Free Swimming (Natural Gas) 1 6” Free Swimming (Nitrogen) 1 6”

Total 8

Waterway Crossing Tool Selection

17

Robotic Tools

(Tethered & Untethered)

Free-

Swimming

Tethered MFL

Pipeline Diameter (OD) 6” – 8” 10” +

• Multiple tool options • Navigate bend radius & combinations • Pipeline cleaning • Resource-intensive

• Navigation challenges due to bend radius & bend combinations

• Limited tool options • Bend radius &

combinations problematic

• Increased tool options • Single point of entry • Less resource-intensive • Likely no pipeline cleaning • Liquid accumulation may

impact traction & electronics

Cased Spans Overview

• Challenges for Application of DA Criteria o Carrier pipe inside casing o Visual inspection of carrier pipe impractical o Standard casing inspection cannot be conducted o Two cased span inspections performed in 2014

18

Example: 10” Carrier Inside 16” Casing Located in Bridge

Structure

Cased Span Project Example

8” Carrier Inside 12” Casing Attached to Bridge

19

8” Carrier 12” Casing

Key Constraints: • Small pipeline diameter

Cased Span Project Example

8” Carrier Inside 12” Casing Attached to Bridge

20

Solution: • Tethered non-robotic MFL • Inserted at cutout on bridge • 202 feet inspected; Direct

Examination at elbows

Constructability Overview

• Construction-Driven Challenges

o High degree of complexity or cost for Direct Assessment

o DA & Non-Traditional ILI options evaluated; Non-Traditional ILI determined to be either a lower cost and/or a greater likelihood of inspection success

o Five construction-driven inspections performed

21

Constructability Project Example

30” OD ECDA Dig on Mountainside in Environmentally Sensitive Area

22

Inspection Location

Key Constraints: • Permitting restrictions for

construction method & access • Soil conditions • Pending inspection deadline

Inspection Location


30” OD ECDA Dig on Mountainside in Environmentally Sensitive Area

23

Solution: • Outage with in-progress

replacement project • Multiple Tool Options • Tethered MFL selected • Completion in 18 days • 1,785 feet inspected

NT ILI Tool Entry Point

Additional ECDA inspection obtained by

NT ILI


30” OD Casing Inspection Delayed by Change in Permitting Conditions

24

Key Constraints: • Completion of casing

inspection infeasible by deadline due to changed permit conditions

• Short NT ILI planning & execution timeframe

In-progress casing inspection delayed


30” OD Casing Inspection Delayed by Change in Permitting Conditions

25

In-progress casing inspection delayed

NT ILI Tool Entry Point

Solution: • Outage with in-progress

replacement project • Tethered robotic EMAT via

cut-out • 119 feet inspected • Completion in six days

4. Detailed Inspection Profile: 20” OD Creek Crossing with

Pipetel Explorer 20/26 Robotic MFL Crawler

26

Project Overview

27

• Low-point in creek crossing on 20” OD pipeline identified for internal corrosion inspection

• 45° sag elbow under creek & adjacent pipe required inspection for internal corrosion

• ICDA project at-risk due to long-lead environmental permits required to complete excavation in creek

Scoping Process

• Goals & Requirements

• Entry Point & Site Planning

• Pipeline Configuration Analysis

• Pipeline & System Conditions

• Resource Identification & Non-Traditional ILI Vendor Feasibility Reviews

28

Key Challenges Identified

1. Environmental Permitting

• ICDA excavation remained preferred option

o Permit stipulations made completion of ICDA excavation infeasible by deadline

• Non-Traditional ILI entry points required to be placed outside of long-lead permitting areas

29


2. Problematic Shutdown

• Gas System Planning analysis indicated significant operational support required to perform shutdown

• Significant impact on other concurrent projects

• Feasibility review conducted to install by-pass to facilitate segment isolation, was determined infeasible due project constraints

30


31

Primary Inspection

Target

3. Inspection of Elbow o Inspection required on bottom 180° of downstream 45°

sag elbow o Inspection at elbows typically challenging for Non-

Traditional ILI tools

NT ILI Solution Determined

32

Inspection Location

1. Environmental Permitting: • Multiple potential entry points identified • Considered all execution methods • Confirmation outside environmental area

Downstream Entry Point

Upstream Entry Points


33

2. Problematic Shutdown

• Pipetel Hot-Tap launch and retrieve capability

• Single entry point • Performed while

pipeline is live


3. Inspection of 45° Sag Elbow

34

Highest risk of tool damage at top of elbow

Target inspection at bottom of

elbow

Sensor blocks to be retracted

• Procedure to retract sensor in bend

• Solution: o Retract top 90° sensor

blocks; deploy lower 270° o Magnetize & collect data

on lower 180°

Project Planning: Standard Considerations

• Construction drawings • Securing temporary construction easement • Construction preparations • Contracting / procurement • Operations procedure for tool insertion/removal • Community outreach • Project management activities:

• Project schedule • Detailed Task List • Detailed Sequence of Operations • Contingency planning

35

Project Planning: Key Considerations

• Pipeline Cleanliness & Potential For Liquids o Interviews conducted with key operations personnel o Documents of Record reviewed from nearby projects o Risk determined low and acceptable

• Support for Launcher Assembly o Cribbing to support launch tube

• Heightened Risk of Sensor Damage o Top 90° of sensors retracted in bend o Additional spare parts & key personnel on site to repair o Contingency time in schedule to accommodate repair

and rerun

36

Project Planning: Key Considerations • Pipeline Depth & Above vs. Below Grade Access to

Launcher o Vertical rise of launch tube insufficient to bring launcher fully

above-grade

37

Option1: Build Extension Pup

Option2: Trench for Below-Grade

Access

Project Planning: Key Considerations

38

Option2: Trench for Below-Grade

Access

Explorer loaded into launch tube prior to attachment to elbow

Execution & Results

39

• Successful Non-Traditional ILI execution 10/29/13

• Minor data loss between 9:00 – 11:30 positions, determined acceptable

• 43.8 total feet inspected including entire creek crossing

• Zero internal anomalies and five minor external anomalies identified

View of target sag bend from Explorer tool

5. Outlook For Future Use & Conclusions

40

Outlook for Future Use

• Challenging Direct Assessment locations such as water crossings and cased spans

• Extended casings and inserted pipe sections

• Short pipeline segments not practical for traditional ILI

• Internal feature identification / pinpointing

41

Conclusions

Proven Value to Operator’s Toolbox • Direct Assessment challenges overcome

• Integrity Management inspections & internal feature identification / pinpointing

Lessons Learned • Early identification of project goals and field challenges

to determine execution options

• No single tool for every job – Match project constraints with tool capabilities for optimal solution

• Detailed Task List, Sequence of Operations, and Contingency Plan for a successful Non-Traditional ILI project

42

Questions?

43