Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inspection Analysis of Crude Oil Pipelines—Damages, Failures and Preventive Program

  • Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed
  • Published:
Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An analysis of the findings from inspections in crude oil pipelines at several locations was performed and a preventive risk-based inspection program was recommended. The relevant results showed that upon visual inspections in different sections of multiple pipelines and areas throughout their locations, corrosion was the most prevalent damage encountered in at least 64% of the occurrences. Out of these, 25% were due to uniform corrosion, 17% had severe uniform corrosion and, in about 22% instances, pitting corrosion was noticed. Among other observations, failures due to ruptures, leaks, and other causes were reported in 11% of the inspections, and signs of possible pipeline diameter reduction were encountered in 11% of the cases. This succinct and substantiated study demonstrates the paramount importance of having routine risk-based inspections programs where severe atmospheric conditions favor corrosion that may lead to costly and devastating failures in pipelines transporting crude oil.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

API:

American Petroleum Institute

CS:

Carbon Steel (low carbon/mild carbon steel)

CoF:

Consequence of failure

COP:

Crude oil pipeline

MEEI:

Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries

PoF:

Probability of failure

RBI:

Risk-Based Inspection

RP:

Recommended practice

UC:

Uniform corrosion(non-severe)

References

  1. A. Marquez, J. Singh, C. Maharaj, Corrosion under insulation examination to prevent failures in equipment at a petrochemical plant. J Fail. Anal. Prev. 21, 723–732 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-021-01135-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. P.R. Roberge, Handbook of corrosion engineering, in McGraw-Hill, 2000, Corrosion Maintenance through Inspection and Monitoring, ch, vol. 6 (2000), pp. 374–383

  3. Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries: www.energy.gov.tt

  4. United States Department of Transportation: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) Database. https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/reports/pipeline-failure-investigation-reports

  5. United Nation, Safety Guidelines and Good Practices for Pipelines, Economic Commission for Europe (United Nation, New York and Geneva, 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Safety and Security of Energy Pipelines in Canada: A Report to Ministers, Energy and Mines Ministers’ Conference, Sudbury, Ontario, Aug (2014)

  7. A. Senouci, M. Elabbasy, E. Elwakil, B. Abdrabou, T. Zayed, A model for predicting failure of oil pipelines. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 10(3), 375–387 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. P.K. Dey. A risk‐based model for inspection and maintenance of cross‐country petroleum pipeline. J. Quality Maint. Eng. Mar. (2001)

  9. G. Pettitt, B. Morgan, A Tool to Estimate the Failure Rates of Cross-Country Pipelines. Symposium Series No. 155 (Hazards XXI, IChemE, 2009)

  10. T. Vairo, S. Magrì, M. Qualgliati, A.P. Reverberi, B. Fabiano, An oil pipeline catastrophic failure: accident scenario modelling and emergency response development. Chem. Eng. Trans. 57, 373–378 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  11. L. Dai, D. Wang, T. Wang, Q. Feng, X. Yang, Analysis and comparison of long-distance pipeline failures. J. Petrol Eng. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3174636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. K. Elaya Perumal, Corrosion risk analysis, risk based inspection and a case study concerning a condensate pipeline. Procedia Eng. 86, 597–605 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. A. Dawotola, Risk Based Maintenance of Petroleum Pipelines, Ph.D Thesis, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands (2012)

  14. A.W. Dawotola, P.H.A.J.M. van Gelder, J.K. Vrijling, Decision analysis framework for risk management of crude oil pipeline system. Adv. Decis. Sci. (2011). https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/456824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. E.B. Priyanka, S. Thangavel, Environmental impacts and its concerns due to accidents in oil & gas pipelines around India-a mini review. J. Atmos. Earth Sci. (2020)

  16. C.R. de Farias Azevedo, Failure analysis of a crude oil pipeline. Eng. Failure Anal. 14(6), 978 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. A. Savio, M.L. Alpert, Hazard Identification Studies Applied to Oil Pipelines, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute-IBP (2008)

  18. S. Girgin, E. Krausmann, Lessons learned from oil pipeline natech accidents and recommendations for natech scenario development. JRC Sci. Policy Rep. Eur. Comm. Final Report. (2015)

  19. A.K. Tewari, D. Agarwal, A case study: failure analysis of crude oil pipeline rupture. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. (IRJET). 05(07), 2415–2422 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  20. A. Botzki, Oil pipeline inspection industry 'going wrong' as surveys fail to prevent spills. Retrieved from: https://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/08/07/oil-pipeline-inspection-industry-going-wrong-surveys-fail-prevent-spills/

  21. M.A. Adegboye, W.-K. Fung, A. Karnik, Recent advances in pipelines monitoring and oil leakage detection technologies: principles and approaches. Sensors. 19, 2548 (2019)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. R. Ravichandran, Evaluation of Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) in Crude Oil Transmission Pipeline, STEM-Corrosion, Paper No: 2017–02 (2017)

  23. R. Palmer-Jones, S. Turner, P. Hopkins, A new approach to risk based pipeline integrity management, in Proceedings of IPC 2006: International Pipeline Conference October 2006; Calgary, Alberta, Canada (2006)

  24. P.K. Dey, Decision support system for inspection and maintenance: a case study of oil pipelines. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 51(1), 47–56 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. A.N. Vtorushina, Y.V. Anishchenko, E.D. Nikonova, Risk assessment of oil pipeline accidents in special climatic conditions, in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 66 (2017)

  26. A. Sider, The Trouble With Inspection Tools for Oil Pipelines, WSJ (2015). https://www.wsj.com/articles/pipeline-inspection-tools-are-far-from-perfect-1435875737

  27. A. Marquez, C. Jagroop, C. Maharaj, Wastewater collection system failures in a capital city: analysis and sustainable prevention. Water Sci. Technol. 83(8), 1958–1972 (2021). https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2021.105

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. P.R. Roberge, Atmospheric corrosion, in Uhlig’s Corrosion Handbook, 3rd edn, ch. 3 (ECS-John Wiley & Sons edit., 2011), pp. 299–326

  29. H. Iqbal, S. Tasfamariam, H. Haider, R. Sadiq, Inspection and maintenance of oil & gas pipelines: a review of policies. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 13, 794–815 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. API RP 570, Piping Inspection Code: In-service Inspection, Rating, Repair and Alteration of Piping Systems, 4th edn (2016)

  31. J.W. Callister, D. Rethwisch, Fundamentals of Materials Science and Engineering (John Wiley & Sons Inc, New Jersey, USA, 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  32. API RP 580, Risk-Based Inspection, 2nd edn (2009)

  33. S. Rogers. Blueprints: Corrosion in Salt Air. North Carolina State University (1995). http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/ncu/ncug85006.pdf

  34. C.I. Ossai, B. Boswell, I.J. Davies, Pipeline failures in corrosive environments—a conceptual analysis of trends and effects. Eng. Fail. Anal. 53, 36–58 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. S. Sampath, B. Bhattacharya, P. Aryan, H. Sohn, A. Real-Time, Non-contact method for in-line inspection of oil and gas pipelines using optical sensor array. Sensors. 19, 3615 (2019)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the MEEI personnel in performing this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fort Worth, USA

    Andres Marquez

  2. Facilities–Engineering, UDECOTT, The Urban Development Corporation of Trinidad and Tobago, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago

    S. Ramoutar

  3. Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering Department, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago

    C. Maharaj

Authors
  1. Andres Marquez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Ramoutar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Maharaj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andres Marquez.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marquez, A., Ramoutar, S. & Maharaj, C. Inspection Analysis of Crude Oil Pipelines—Damages, Failures and Preventive Program. J Fail. Anal. and Preven. 23, 700–710 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-023-01598-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-023-01598-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation