Investing in corrosion management

corrosion

By Ian Diggory and Dr Jozef Soltis, Rosen Group, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Two pipeline industry experts share their observations on the effectiveness of pipeline corrosion management.

There has been a considerable number of studies conducted on the cost of corrosion and how it impacts the economy of individual countries. One common feature of these studies is an emphasis on the importance of corrosion management.

The most recent corrosion study1, reported in 2016 by NACE International, reveals that the cost of corrosion represents about 3.4 per cent of a country’s gross domestic product (GDP), i.e. approximately US$2.5 trillion on a global scale.

It is interesting to compare this with the results of a 2002 studyconducted by the US’ Federal Highway Association, which estimated that the total annual cost of corrosion in the United States was about 3.1 per cent of that country’s GDP.

Comparing the corrosion cost estimates available for the US from these two studies would suggest that, in spite of ongoing scientific corrosion research, remarkable technological progress in the development of corrosion related inspection and monitoring tools, and readily available corrosion mitigation and control systems, we appear to have made no significant progress in reducing corrosion issues over this 14-year period.

However, whatever the reason(s) might be, the resulting consequences can have a devastating impact on both the affected assets and local populations.

In 2014, the potable-water supply in the city of Flint (Michigan, USA) was switched from Lake Huron to the Flint River, as the city was under state management due to a financial emergency3.

This switch in water supplies was not accompanied by a federally mandated corrosion management action; namely anti-corrosive treatmentfor the more-corrosive Flint River water5.

Failure to carry out this treatment at a cost of only about US$100 a day6 resulted in extensive damage to the water distribution network, and contaminated the local potable-water supply. Consequently, the city population was exposed to the very real threat of lead poisoning.

Not surprisingly, this case has received a great deal of adverse coverage in the US news media and in other parts of the world.

However, the underlying issues was a simple lack of corrosion-management implementation to address a recognised problem.

The incident at Flint is but one example of a relatively ‘small’ potable-water pipeline network, where a corrosion management failure led to serious consequences. Unfortunately, a similar risk also exists across most other sectors of the pipeline industry.

The oil and gas industry operates an extensive global pipeline network where corrosion continues to be a problem, and consequences of failure could in fact exceed those of the Flint incident; for example, the gas pipeline failure in Carlsbad (New Mexico) in August 2007, and cases discussed elsewhere8.

These problems persist9 in the industry despite the fact that pipeline corrosion related problems are generally well understood, advanced inspection technologies have been developed and, in many cases, adequate mitigation measures are available.

It appears that many corrosion related failures are the result of poor corrosion management and implementation.

In the face of this evidence, the goal should be at least to minimise, if not prevent, occurrence of failures and ensure the safety of the public and the environment; improving information sharing and adopting a common understanding and philosophy of asset care may help with implementation of effective corrosion management strategies.

Diggory+Soltis - Rosen - Fig1

FIGURE 1: Schematic depicting a basic concept of a corrosion-management system.

Defining an effective corrosion management strategy can be broken down into a few critical elements, as shown in the schematic10 in Figure 1.

In essence, it is a combination of clear policies and procedures, a corrosion risk assessment process, a plan for implementing inspection, maintenance, and rehabilitation strategies, and well-defined key performance indicators.

A critical component is the systematic and regular review of system performance, alongside periodic independent reviews and audits, with the overall intention being the idea of ‘getting things right’.

It is important to realise that it is the effective implementation of a corrosion management strategy – i.e. the execution of inspection, monitoring, and mitigation activities – which helps to maximise asset operation, minimise failures, and optimise costs.

Furthermore, a corrosion management strategy is more than a set of documents: it is a dynamic system that has requisite management tools to maintain asset integrity, while minimising health and environmental risks throughout an asset life cycle.

Based on our experience in auditing, developing, and implementing asset integrity management systems in the oil and gas industry, we highlight the importance of establishing and maintaining an ongoing connection between policies and the implementation of relevant activities, such as ensuring there is follow up to track down and close out recommended actions.

In addition to maintaining policies and documentation, the focus must be on practical management and identification of the resources needed to effectively implement a corrosion strategy.

We also note that challenges may arise when there is a change in asset ownership. Any implemented corrosion management strategy must be compatible with the experience and capabilities of the new owners, and may well include development of workforce competencies.

Considering the current environment, which is dominated by low oil prices, attention must be focused on existing assets, many of which are ageing.

The continuing struggle to balance cost, efficiency, and sustainability is even more difficult in the current economic climate.

In order to create a sustainable and profitable future, the industry needs to address integrity challenges in an integrated and strategic manner, always having a long-term strategy in mind.

It must learn to be proactive by preparing answers to the questions such as ‘What might go wrong?’ and ‘How can we prevent incidents?’ rather than having retrospectively to answer the questions ‘What went wrong?’ and ‘Could we have prevented this incident?’.

Although a reactive approach may provide short-term savings, it is proactive management that delivers improved operational reliability and an optimisation of the overall asset life-cycle cost.

Perhaps one way of getting answers to these questions is through learning from other industries. For example, in the aviation industry, information about any untoward incident is openly and rapidly shared across the industry.

The global pipeline industry should consider adopting a similar concept of information sharing under the banner of a common asset integrity philosophy and a unified approach to corrosion management.

This article was featured in the September edition of Pipelines International. To view the magazine on your PC, Mac, tablet, or mobile device, click here.

  1. G.Koch, N.Thompson, O.Moghissi, J.Payer, and J.Varney, 2016. Impact: international measures of prevention, application and economics of corrosion technology study. Report No. OAPUS310GKOCH, AP11272, NACE International, Houston, TX.
  2. G.Koch, M.Brongers, N.Thompson, Y.Virmani, and J.Payer, 2001. Corrosion cost and preventive strategies in the United States. FHWA-RD-01-156, McLean, VA, FHWA.
  3. City switch to Flint River water slated to happen Friday. The Flint Journal, 24 April, 2014.
  4. R. Jordan, 2016. Q&A: Stanford water expert on lessons of Flint, Michigan, crisis. Stanford News, 11 March.
  5. M.Edwards, 2015. Research update: corrosivity of Flint water to iron pipes in the city – a costly problem. Flint Water Study Updates, 29 September.
  6. S.Gosk, K.Monahan, T.Sandler, and H.Rappleye, 2016. Internal e-mail: Michigan blowing off Flint over lead in water. NBC News, 6 January.
  7. M.Gaffney, 2000. Only one survivor remains from New Mexico explosion. Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 21 August.
  8. B.Singh, J.Britton, and D.Flannery, 2003. Offshore corrosion failure analysis – a series of case histories. Paper 03114, Corrosion 2003, NACE International, Houston, TX.
  9. B.Vielmetti, 2014. Former Shell pipeline monitor to plead guilty in airport leak. The J. Sentinel, 17 November.
  10. B.Singh, P.Jukes, B.Wittkower, and B.Poblete, 2009. Offshore integrity management 20 years on – overview of lessons learnt post-Piper Alpha. Paper OTC 20051-PP, Offshore Technology Conference, NACE International, Houston, TX.
  11. J.Soltis, M.Palmer, D.Sandana, and I.Laing, 2016. Importance of corrosion diagnosis in repeated in-line inspection-based corrosion growth assessments. Paper RISK16-8749, Corrosion Risk Management Conference 2016, NACE International, Houston, TX.

Recent Comments