Celebrate World Corrosion Awareness Day with 20% off eCourses and eBooks with code WCAD2024 at checkout!
The Enbridge External Corrosion Prevention team (ECP) is developing an Integrated External Corrosion Management (IECM) process by which management of external corrosion control systems can be optimized whilemaintaining asset integrity and safety. IECM is intended to provide a methodology by which operators can move from a traditional reactive approach to a state-of-the-art proactive strategy commensurate with industry expertise and technology. Here we discuss a case study intended to demonstrate and assess the outcomes of IECM. The subject is a 12-inch diameter crude oil pipeline located in North America. Results of the process reveal opportunities for improvement and efficiencies in operation and maintenance (O&M).
Recent years have seen advances in controlling external corrosion for buried pipelines. Specialized equipment andmethods for assessing cathodic protection effectiveness and AC corrosion threats, state-of-the art corrosionsensing equipment, remote monitoring dataloggers, and advanced modeling techniques offer operatorstechnologically advanced means and methods for managing external corrosion risks. While proof of compliancecontinues to rely on long-established field tests and monitoring cycles, there are opportunities to improve externalcorrosion management programs to incorporate advanced technologies and methods. This paper presents a casestudy demonstrating the Enbridge Integrated External Corrosion Management (IECM) methodology for a 12-inch,85-mile-long crude oil pipeline located in North America. Pipeline construction, external corrosion history,modeling, field validation assessment, and resulting IECM protocols are presented and discussed.
Managing external corrosion, especially for underground assets, is a significant challenge dating back to the first underground pipeline in 1865. The very first issue of the journal, CORROSION, featured a headline story on this subject. This subject is fundamental for corrosion engineers and pipeline operators.
We are unable to complete this action. Please try again at a later time.
If this error continues to occur, please contact AMPP Customer Support for assistance.
Use this error code for reference:
Please login to use Standards Credits*
* AMPP Members receive Standards Credits in order to redeem eligible Standards and Reports in the Store
You are not a Member.
AMPP Members enjoy many benefits, including Standards Credits which can be used to redeem eligible Standards and Reports in the Store.
You can visit the Membership Page to learn about the benefits of membership.
You have previously purchased this item.
Go to Downloadable Products in your AMPP Store profile to find this item.
You do not have sufficient Standards Credits to claim this item.
Click on 'ADD TO CART' to purchase this item.
Your Standards Credit(s)
1
Remaining Credits
0
Please review your transaction.
Click on 'REDEEM' to use your Standards Credits to claim this item.
You have successfully redeemed:
Go to Downloadable Products in your AMPP Store Profile to find and download this item.
Historically the corrosion condition and cathodic protection (CP) effectiveness of pipeline networks have been monitored by over-the-line surveys. Pipe-to-soil potentials and rectifier outputs are the major parameters measured, and for some pipelines a more intensive close interval survey is executed. Today test stations and more frequently rectifiers are equipped with remote monitoring devices which is shifting the industry towards the world of digitization. Unfortunately, external corrosion is still not fully under control.
While performing cathodic protection surveys, carrier pipe and casing potential readings are typically recorded at the same test station location near the end of a casing. Comparing these potentials should reveal a difference between the cathodically protected pipe versus an unprotected and electrically isolated casing. The difference in potentials is one of available tests to determine whether a casing may be electrically shorted to the carrier pipe. The pipe-to-electrolyte and casing-to-electrolyte potential comparison is usually the initial “screening” method.