Sie sind auf Seite 1von 375

Provision Of Pipeline FFP Services For Seligi &

PM8 Pipelines
Prepared for: EnQuest (EQ Petroleum Production Malaysia Ltd)
Doc. Ref.: 03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001
Rev: C
Date: July 2016

Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment


Report
Provision Of Pipeline FFP Services For Seligi & PM8 Pipelines

Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Revision History

Revision Date Comments

A 31-Mar-16 Issued for Review

B 13-June-16 Issued for Approval


C 4-July-16 Re-Issued for Approval

HOLDS
No. Section Comment

Signatory Legend
Revision Role Comments

Prepared Herizal Hamdan

C Checked David Sze

Approved Jeff Pearman

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 3 of 116
Provision Of Pipeline FFP Services For Seligi & PM8 Pipelines

Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 12


1.1 Project Overview ...................................................................................................................... 12
1.2 WGK Scope .............................................................................................................................. 13
1.3 Purpose of Document ............................................................................................................... 15
1.4 Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ 15

2.0 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................ 17


2.1 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 17
2.1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 17
2.1.2 Free Span Assessment ....................................................................................................... 17
2.1.3 Corrosion Defect Assessment ............................................................................................. 19
2.1.4 Remaining Life .................................................................................................................... 26
2.1.4.1 With ILI Data ....................................................................................................... 26
2.1.4.2 Without ILI Data .................................................................................................. 27
2.1.5 Underwater Inspection Review ............................................................................................ 27
2.1.7 Cathodic Protection Review ................................................................................................ 29
2.2 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 31
2.2.1 Free Span Assessment ....................................................................................................... 31
2.2.2 Corrosion Defect Assessment ............................................................................................ 31
2.2.3 Underwater Inspection Review ............................................................................................ 32
2.2.4 Cathodic Protection Review ................................................................................................ 32
2.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 33
2.3.1 Free Span Assessment ....................................................................................................... 33
2.3.2 Corrosion Defect Assessment ............................................................................................. 33
2.3.3 Underwater Inspection Review ............................................................................................ 34
2.3.4 Cathodic Protection Review ................................................................................................ 34

3.0 Assessment Input Data ..................................................................................................... 35


3.1 General ..................................................................................................................................... 35
3.2 Existing Pipe Properties ........................................................................................................... 35
3.3 Existing Operational Data......................................................................................................... 36
3.4 Current Operational Data ......................................................................................................... 38
3.5 Existing Pipe Coating ............................................................................................................... 40
3.6 Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure based on Current Operating Pressure .................. 42
3.7 Tool Performance Specifications ............................................................................................. 43
3.8 Inspection and Survey Data ..................................................................................................... 43

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 4 of 116
Provision Of Pipeline FFP Services For Seligi & PM8 Pipelines

Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

3.9 Environmental Data .................................................................................................................. 44


3.10 Soil Data ................................................................................................................................... 44

4.0 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 45


4.1 Free Span Assessment ............................................................................................................ 45
4.1.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 45
4.1.2 Level 1 - Screening Analysis ............................................................................................... 45
4.1.3 Free Spans Ranking ............................................................................................................ 45
4.2 Corrosion Assessment ............................................................................................................. 45
4.3 Corrosion Defect Assessment.................................................................................................. 46
4.3.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 46
4.3.2 Single Isolated Defect Under Internal Pressure .................................................................. 46
4.3.3 Interacting Defects Under Internal Pressure ....................................................................... 47
4.3.4 Remaining Life Estimation ................................................................................................... 48
4.3.5 Leak and Rupture Failure .................................................................................................... 48
4.3.6 Safety Factor for Pipeline and Riser .................................................................................... 49
4.3.7 FFP Software ...................................................................................................................... 49
4.4 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................. 50
4.4.1 Free Span Assessment ....................................................................................................... 50
4.4.2 Corrosion Rate Assessment ................................................................................................ 50
4.4.3 FFP Assessment ................................................................................................................. 51

5.0 Results and Discussions .................................................................................................. 54


5.1 Free Span Assessment ............................................................................................................ 54
5.1.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 54
5.1.2 Results ................................................................................................................................ 54
5.1.3 Comparison between 2015 free spans and historical free spans by EMEPMI .................... 71
5.1.3.1 Pipeline Id. No. 1: 18” Crude SEA – TAP ............................................................ 71
5.1.3.2 Pipeline Id. No. 2: 18" FWS SEB – SEA.............................................................. 72
5.1.3.3 Pipeline Id. No. 17: 24” Gas SEA – ANGSI ......................................................... 73
5.1.3.4 Pipeline Id. No. 19: 18” FWS LWA – SEA ........................................................... 73
5.2 Corrosion Assessment ............................................................................................................. 77
5.2.1 Full Well Stream (FWS) Pipelines – Pipeline Id. No. 2, 5, 6, 8, 18, 19 & 21 ....................... 77
5.2.2 Crude Main Oil Line (MOL) – Pipeline Id. No. 1, 1a ............................................................ 78
5.2.3 Gas Pipelines – Pipeline Id. No. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 23, 24 & 25 ...................... 78
5.2.4 H2S Sensitivity Analysis ...................................................................................................... 81
5.3 Corrosion Defect Assessment (for pipelines with single / multiple ILI) .................................... 83
5.3.1 Summary of Anomalies based on ILI runs .......................................................................... 83

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 5 of 116
Provision Of Pipeline FFP Services For Seligi & PM8 Pipelines

Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

5.3.2 Review of Underwater Inspection ........................................................................................ 85


5.3.3 Cathodic Protection System ................................................................................................ 86
5.3.5 Corrosion Features – pipelines with ILI ............................................................................... 88
5.3.6 Safe Working Pressure of the As-Found Corrosion Anomalies – pipelines with ILI ............ 92
5.3.7 SWP Assessment based on Design MAOP ........................................................................ 97
5.3.8 Interactive Defect Assessment ............................................................................................ 98
5.3.9 Matching of Corrosion Features .......................................................................................... 98
5.3.10 Remaining Life of Pipeline Section with Worst Corrosion feature – pipelines with ILI......... 99
5.3.12 Estimated Repair Year ...................................................................................................... 101
5.3.13 Leak and Rupture Evaluation ............................................................................................ 102
5.4 Corrosion Defect Assessment (for pipelines without ILI) ....................................................... 106
5.4.1 Review of Underwater Inspection ...................................................................................... 106
5.4.2 Cathodic Protection System .............................................................................................. 106
5.4.3 Wall Loss Estimation – pipelines without ILI ..................................................................... 108
5.4.4 Estimated Remaining Life of Pipeline – pipelines without ILI ............................................ 108
5.5 Minimum Required Wall Thickness and Remaining Life Estimation (based on De-rated
Pressure) ................................................................................................................................ 109

6.0 References ....................................................................................................................... 111

Appendix A Internal Pressure Plots .........................................................................................A-1

Appendix B Details of Manufacturing Defects ........................................................................B-1

Appendix C Details on the Underwater Inspection Findings.................................................C-1

Appendix D Details on the CP Inspection Findings ...............................................................D-1

Appendix E Corrosion Classifications .................................................................................... E-1

Appendix F Distribution of All Detected Corrosion Anomalies ............................................ F-1

Appendix G IC-FINESSE Assessment Results ...................................................................... G-1

Appendix H Safe Working Pressure (SWP) Plots ...................................................................H-1

Appendix I Details Listing of Worst Defects Based on ERF ................................................. I-1

Appendix J Details Listing of Interacting Defects ................................................................. J-1

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 6 of 116
Provision Of Pipeline FFP Services For Seligi & PM8 Pipelines

Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Appendix K Matching Spans Plots ..........................................................................................K-1

Appendix L MATHCAD Allowable Spans Length ................................................................... L-1

Appendix M Production Flow Profile ...................................................................................... M-1

Appendix N ECE 5.1.1 Corrosion Model ..................................................................................N-1

Appendix O Email Correspondence to 9lb/MMSCFD Wet Case ........................................... O-1

Appendix P Fluid Analysis Reports and Specific Gravity ..................................................... P-1

Appendix Q Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id. #22 ........................... Q-1

Appendix R IC-FINESSE Software Features ...........................................................................R-1

Appendix S Estimated Remaining Life and Repair Year (Based on 80%WT criteria) ......... S-1

Appendix T Revision on the Maximum Operating Pressure Point ....................................... T-1

Appendix U Estimated Remaining Life and Repair Year (Based on Minimum Required Wall
Thickness Criteria for De-Rated Pressure) ................................................................................U-2

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 7 of 116
Provision Of Pipeline FFP Services For Seligi & PM8 Pipelines

Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

List of Figures
Figure 1-1 EnQuest Pipeline Layout .............................................................................................. 12
Figure 5-1 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 1) ........................................................................... 54
Figure 5-2 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 2) ........................................................................... 55
Figure 5-3 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 3) ........................................................................... 55
Figure 5-4 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 4) ........................................................................... 56
Figure 5-5 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 5) ........................................................................... 56
Figure 5-6 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 6) ........................................................................... 57
Figure 5-7 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 7) ........................................................................... 57
Figure 5-8 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 8) ........................................................................... 58
Figure 5-9 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 10) ......................................................................... 58
Figure 5-10 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 11) ....................................................................... 59
Figure 5-11 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 12) ....................................................................... 59
Figure 5-12 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 13) ....................................................................... 60
Figure 5-13 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 14) ....................................................................... 60
Figure 5-14 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 15) ....................................................................... 61
Figure 5-15 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 16) ....................................................................... 61
Figure 5-16 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 17) ....................................................................... 62
Figure 5-17 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 18) ....................................................................... 62
Figure 5-18 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 19) ....................................................................... 63
Figure 5-19 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 21) ....................................................................... 63
Figure 5-20 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 22) ....................................................................... 64
Figure 5-21 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 23) ....................................................................... 64
Figure 5-22 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 24) ....................................................................... 65
Figure 5-23 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 25) ....................................................................... 65
Figure 5-24 Spans Exceeding Allowable (Matching Spans Id. 1) .................................................. 72
Figure 5-25 Spans Exceeding Allowable (Matching Spans Id. 2) .................................................. 73
Figure 5-26 Spans Exceeding Allowable (Matching Spans Id. 19 – KP0 to KP4.75)..................... 74
Figure 5-27 Spans Exceeding Allowable (Matching Spans Id. 19 – KP9.5 to KP14.25)................ 75
Figure 5-28 Spans Exceeding Allowable (Matching Spans Id. 19 – KP19 to KP23.75)................. 75
Figure 5-29 Spans Exceeding Allowable (Matching Spans Id. 19 – KP42.75 to KP47.5).............. 76
Figure 5-30 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth (for Pipeline Id. No. 10).................... 90
Figure 5-31 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation (for Pipeline Id. No. 10)............ 91
Figure 5-32 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length (for Pipeline Id. No. 10) ......... 91
Figure 5-33 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width (for Pipeline Id. No. 10) ........... 92

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 8 of 116
Provision Of Pipeline FFP Services For Seligi & PM8 Pipelines

Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Figure 5-34 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG,


using Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at Riser Section) .............................................. 93
Figure 5-35 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG,
using Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at Pipeline Section) .......................................... 93
Figure 5-36 Safe Working Pressures of Metal Loss Features ....................................................... 95
Figure 5-37 Failure Pressures of Critical Defects (Toughness Dependant) – Pipeline Id. No. 5 . 103
Figure 5-38 Failure Pressures of Critical Defects (Flow Stress Dependant) – Pipeline Id. No.5 . 103
Figure 5-39 Remaining Life Estimation Beyond 80%WT Defect Depth ....................................... 105

List of Tables
Table 1-1 Pipeline Details – Seligi & PM-8 Fields .......................................................................... 13
Table 1-2 List of Pipeline Assessed (with single / multiple ILI) ...................................................... 15
Table 1-3 List of Pipeline Assessed (without ILI) ........................................................................... 15
Table 2-1 Summary of Free Spans Assessment – Criticality Ranking .......................................... 18
Table 2-2 Corrosion Defect Assessment Results (for pipelines with ILI) – based on Reduced
MAOP (as per current operating pressure profile) .......................................................................... 21
Table 2-3 Corrosion Defect Assessment Results (for pipelines with ILI) – based on Design MAOP
........................................................................................................................................................ 22
Table 2-4 Corrosion Defect Assessment Results (for pipelines without ILI) .................................. 23
Table 2-5 Corrosion Defect Assessment Results (for pipelines with ILI) – based on De-rated
Pressure .......................................................................................................................................... 24
Table 2-6 Summary of Interacting Defect Results ......................................................................... 25
Table 2-7 Estimated Repair Year of Worst Corrosion Feature ...................................................... 26
Table 2-8 Next Worst Corrosion Feature and Estimated Repair Year ........................................... 27
Table 2-9 Summary of Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser ............................................. 28
Table 2-10 Pipelines with Concrete Coating Damage ................................................................... 28
Table 2-11 CP Readings and Estimated Depletion >75% at Pipeline ........................................... 29
Table 2-12 KP Location of Anodes with depletion >75% ............................................................... 30
Table 3-1 Existing Pipe Properties ................................................................................................. 35
Table 3-2 Existing Operational Data .............................................................................................. 37
Table 3-3 Current Operational Data ............................................................................................... 38
Table 3-4 Pipe Coating Data .......................................................................................................... 40
Table 3-5 Mean and Maximum Current Operating Pressure ......................................................... 42
Table 3-6 Inspection Tool Accuracy Data ...................................................................................... 43
Table 3-7 Wave and Current Data ................................................................................................. 44
Table 3-8 Soil Properties ............................................................................................................... 44
Table 4-1 Criticality Ranking .......................................................................................................... 45

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 9 of 116
Provision Of Pipeline FFP Services For Seligi & PM8 Pipelines

Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 4-2 Safety Factor for SWP Assessment .............................................................................. 49


Table 4-3 Connecting Pipeline ....................................................................................................... 52
Table 5-1 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #1 ............................................ 66
Table 5-2 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #2 ............................................ 66
Table 5-3 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #5 ............................................ 66
Table 5-4 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #8 ............................................ 66
Table 5-5 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #10 .......................................... 67
Table 5-6 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #11 .......................................... 67
Table 5-7 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #12 .......................................... 67
Table 5-8 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #13 .......................................... 68
Table 5-9 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #14 .......................................... 68
Table 5-10 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #15 ........................................ 68
Table 5-11 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #16 ........................................ 68
Table 5-12 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #17 ........................................ 69
Table 5-13 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #18 ........................................ 69
Table 5-14 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #19 ........................................ 69
Table 5-15 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #21 ........................................ 70
Table 5-16 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #25 ........................................ 71
Table 5-17 Matching Free Span for Pipeline Id No. 1 .................................................................... 71
Table 5-18 Matching Free Span for Pipeline Id No. 2 .................................................................... 72
Table 5-19 Matching Free Span for Pipeline Id No. 19 .................................................................. 74
Table 5-20 Corrosion Threats and Barriers for FWS Pipelines (as per Current Operating
Condition) ........................................................................................................................................ 77
Table 5-21 Corrosion Threats and Barriers for MOL (as per Current Operating Condition) .......... 78
Table 5-22 Corrosion Threats and Barriers for Gas Pipelines (during process upset) (as per
Current Operating Condition) .......................................................................................................... 79
Table 5-23 Predicted Corrosion Rates for Seligi and PM8 Pipelines using ECE 5.1.1. ................. 80
Table 5-24 H2S Sensitivity Check ................................................................................................. 82
Table 5-25 Summary of Anomalies as per reported in ILI ............................................................. 84
Table 5-26 Pipelines with Manufacturing Defect ............................................................................ 85
Table 5-27 Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser ............................................................... 86
Table 5-28 Pipelines with Concrete Coating Damage ................................................................... 86
Table 5-29 CP readings and Estimated Depletion >75% at Pipeline ............................................. 87
Table 5-30 KP Location of Anodes with depletion >75% ............................................................... 87
Table 5-31 Corrosion Features as per Detected During ILI ........................................................... 88
Table 5-32 Summary of Corrosion Features along Pipeline and Riser (Pipeline Id. No. 10) ......... 88
Table 5-33 Summary of Worst Internal Corrosion based on Reported Depth as per ILI ............... 89
Table 5-34 Summary of Worst External Corrosion based on Reported Depth as per ILI .............. 89

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 10 of 116
Provision Of Pipeline FFP Services For Seligi & PM8 Pipelines

Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 5-35 Summary of Worst Internal Corrosion based on Defect Depth (inclusive of tool
accuracy) ........................................................................................................................................ 94
Table 5-36 Summary of Worst External Corrosion based on Depth (inclusive of tool accuracy) ... 94
Table 5-37 Summary of Worst Internal Corrosion based on ERF Results..................................... 96
Table 5-38 Summary of Worst External Corrosion based on ERF Results ................................... 96
Table 5-39 SWP Assessment based on Design MAOP ................................................................ 97
Table 5-40 Summary of Interacting Defect Results ....................................................................... 98
Table 5-41 Defect Matching Assessment for Pipelines with multiple ILI ......................................... 99
Table 5-42 Remaining Life of Pipeline based on Worst Internal Corrosion Feature ...................... 99
Table 5-43 Estimated Repair Year ............................................................................................... 101
Table 5-44 Next Worst Corrosion Feature and Estimated Repair Year ....................................... 102
Table 5-45 Critical Rupture Length for Defect – Pipeline Id. No. 5 .............................................. 104
Table 5-46 Internal Corrosion Rate Based on ECE for Pipeline No. 5 ........................................ 104
Table 5-47 Defects Estimated Remaining Life at Different Wall Loss Depth ............................... 105
Table 5-48 List of Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser .................................................. 106
Table 5-49 CP Readings and Estimated Depletion >75% at Pipeline ......................................... 107
Table 5-50 KP Location of Anodes with depletion >75% ............................................................. 107
Table 5-51 Estimated Corrosion Rate and Wall Loss for No ILI Line........................................... 108
Table 5-52 Remaining Life of Pipeline ......................................................................................... 108
Table 5-53 Corrosion Defect Assessment Results (for pipelines with ILI) – based on De-rated
Pressure ........................................................................................................................................ 110

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 11 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Overview

EnQuest have recently taken ownership of the Seligi and PM8 assets from ExxonMobil. The field
schematic is shown in Figure 1-1 and the pipeline details are shown in Table 1-1. There are 25
pipelines (23 operating and 2 non-operating – pipeline Id. No. 9 and 20) of various ages, carrying a
variety of fluids, and constructed with a range of materials, including CRA clad. In order to
understand the current condition of the pipelines, WGK has been contracted by EnQuest to perform
the fitness for purpose (FFP) assessment services for the Seligi & PM8 pipelines.

Figure 1-1 EnQuest Pipeline Layout

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 12 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 1-1 Pipeline Details – Seligi & PM-8 Fields


Length Year
Id. # From / To Service OD (inch)
(km) Installed
SELIGI FIELD
1 SEA - TAP Crude 18 52.29 1988
1 (a) SEA - TAP(Partial replacement)[1] Crude 18 21.18 2006
2 SEB - SEA FWS 18 4.36 1988
3 SEC - SEA[2] FWS 12.75/12.5 5.62 2011
[2]
4 SED - SEA FWS 12.75/12.5 3.67 2011
5 SEE - SEA FWS 18 7.64 1992
6 SEG - SEA FWS 12.75 4.5 1991
7 SEF - SED[2] FWS 12.75/12.5 4.35 2011
8 SEH - Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline SEB-SEA) FWS 10.75 2.3 2000
9 SEA - BEC (HOLD)[3] Gas 8.63 24.52 1990
10 SEA - SEB Gas 10.75 4.49 1988
11 SEA - SED Gas 10.75 3.55 1988
12 SEA - SEG Gas 6.63 4.7 1991
13 SED - SEC Gas 6.63 3.4 1996
14 SEB - SEE Gas 8.63 3.6 1992
15 SED - SEF Gas 6.63 4.6 1997
Subsea Hot Tap - SEH (pipeline SEA-
16 Gas 6.63 1.78 2000
SEB)
17 SEA - ANGSI Gas 24.5/24 81.88 2002
PM-8 FIELD
18 RAA - SEA FWS 16 32.46 2004
19 LWA - SEA FWS 18 45.35 2001
RAB - Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline RAA-
20 FWS 8.63 4 2001
SEA) [3]
SRA - Subsea Lateral Tie-In (pipeline
21 FWS 12.75 14 2001
LWA-SEA)
22 SEA - Lateral Tie-in - LWA Gas 8.63 59.4 1997
Subsea Lateral Tie-In - RAA (pipeline
23 Gas 8.63 0.022 2001
RAA-LWA)
Subsea Lateral Tie-In - SRA (pipeline
24 Gas 6.63 0.06 2001
RAA-LWA)
Subsea Hot Tap - RAB (pipeline SEA-
25 Gas 6.63 0.92 2001
RAA)
Notes:
1. Partially replaced in 2006 from KP0 – KP21
2. Internal CRA: Alloy 825 (2.5mm thk)
3. Non-operating

1.2 WGK Scope

The scope of work for fitness for purpose (FFP) assessment to be performed by WGK covers the
following elements:

1. Perform pipeline integrity assessment study for Seligi & PM8 pipelines using current
operating parameters incorporating existing corrosion defects based on the latest in-line
inspection (ILI) report.

2. Collate current operating parameters and existing monitoring history of Seligi & PM8
pipelines which include the following:

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 13 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

o Existing Seligi & PM8 pipelines product composition, operating parameters, process
parameters.

o Existing Seligi & PM8 pipelines corrosion mitigation history and inspection and
maintenance history.

o Existing Seligi & PM8 pipelines integrity assessment (current operations) history.

3. Review and summarize the as-found anomalies from ILI runs as provided in the In-line
Inspection (ILI) reports.

4. Review and summarize the anomalies from underwater inspection and cathodic protection
(CP) surveys as provided in the inspection reports.

5. Perform corrosion defect assessment to evaluate the Safe Working Pressure (SWP) of the
identified defects at the time of inspection for Seligi & PM8 pipelines using RSTRENG based
on Simplified Method [Ref. 42] and DNV-RP-F101 Part B Allowable Stress Design [Ref. 43]
under current operating conditions. The assessment covers both single and interacting
defects (if any), and the pressure assessment is based on the current operating pressure of
the pipeline. Interacting defects assessment is based on DNV-RP-F101 Part B Allowable
Stress Design (ASD).

6. Develop corrosion rate(s) for the pipeline based on current product composition, current
operating parameters and existing Seligi & PM8 pipelines in-line inspection/integrity
assessment/corrosion mitigation reports.

7. Establish the remaining life of the pipelines from last inspection year based on the calculated
future corrosion rates, considering the current operating parameters and existing defects of
Seligi & PM8 pipelines.

8. Perform condition assessment for pipeline systems and components. This includes
assessment of metal loss defects, dents and cracks (i.e. defect assessment) as well as
assessment of cathodic protection performance, coating damage, seabed debris, etc.

9. Perform Level 1 screening free span assessment based on latest free span identified from
inspection reports.

10. Establish pipeline fitness level for the Seligi & PM8 pipelines.

The pipelines considered in the FFP assessment scope are for cases with ILI reports, as shown in
Table 1-2 and without ILI report, as shown in Table 1-3.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 14 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 1-2 List of Pipeline Assessed (with single / multiple ILI)


Id. # Pipeline Description Service ILI Year & Vendor
1 18” SEA - TAP Crude 2014 (Rosen), 2008 (Romstar)
2 18" SEB - SEA FWS 2006 (Rosen)
5 18" SEE - SEA FWS 2015 (Romstar), 2010 (TPS)
6 12" SEG - SEA FWS 2013 (Romstar), 2006 (Rosen)
10 10" SEA - SEB Gas 2006 (PII)
11 10" SEA - SED Gas 2011 (Rosen), 2015 (Romstar)
12 6" SEA - SEG Gas 2012 & 1996 (Rosen)
13 6” SED - SEC Gas 2012 (Rosen)
14 8" SEB - SEE Gas 2011 & 1998 (Rosen)
15 6" SED - SEF Gas 2012 (Rosen)
17 24” SEA - ANGSI Gas 2012 (Rosen), 2004 (PII)
18 16” RAA - SEA FWS 2008 (Rosen)
19 18” LWA - SEA FWS 2015 & 2012 (Romstar),
22 8” SEA - LWA Gas 2012 (Rosen)

Table 1-3 List of Pipeline Assessed (without ILI)


Id. # Pipeline Description Service
3[1] 12” SEC - SEA FWS
4[1] 12” SED - SEA FWS
7[1] 12” SEF - SED FWS
8 10” SEH - Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline SEB-SEA) FWS
16 6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline SEA-SEB) - SEH Gas
21 12” SRA - Subsea Lateral Tie-In (pipeline LWA-SEA) FWS
23 8” Lateral Tie-in (pipeline SEA-RAA) - RAA Gas
24 6” Subsea Lateral Tie-In (pipeline RAA-LWA) - SRA Gas
25 6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline SEA-RAA) - RAB Gas
Note:
1. Internal CRA: Alloy 825 (2.5mm thk)

Pipelines Id. No. 9 and 20 are not included in the FFP assessment scope as they are non-operating
pipelines.

1.3 Purpose of Document

This document presents the Level 1 span analysis results, corrosion rate studies and fitness for
purpose (FFP) assessment results of the Seligi and PM8 pipelines based on current in-line
inspection (ILI) reports using current operating parameters and underwater inspection reviews.

1.4 Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this document:


3LPP Three Layer Polypropylene
AE Asphalt Enamel
ANGSI ANDR-A Platform
API American Petroleum Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
CP Cathodic Protection
CRA Corrosion Resistant Alloy
CS Carbon Steel
CTE Coal Tar Enamel
CWC Concrete Weight Coating
DIM Design Instruction Manual
DNV Det Norske Veritas
ECE Electronic Corrosion Engineer

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 15 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

EnQuest EQ Petroleum Production Malaysia Ltd


FBE Fusion Bonded Epoxy
FFP Fitness for Purpose
FWS Full Well Stream
H2S Hydrogen Sulphide
Id Identification
ILI In-Line Inspection
KP Kilometre Post
LWA Lawang-A Platform
MAOP Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure
MFL Magnetic Flux Leakage
MOP Maximum Operating Pressure
NA Not Available
No. Number
OD Outer Diameter
OS Offshore Standard
RAA Raya-A Platform
RAB Raya-B Platform
Ref. Reference
ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle
RP Recommended Practice
SEA Seligi-A Platform
SEB Seligi-B Platform
SEC Seligi-C Platform
SED Seligi-D Platform
SEE Seligi-E Platform
SEF Seligi-F Platform
SEG Seligi-G Platform
SEH Seligi-H Platform
SMLS Seamless Pipe
SMTS Specified Minimum Tensile Strength
SMYS Specified Minimum Yield Stress
SRA Serudon-A Platform
SRB Sulphate Reducing Bacteria
SSS Side Scan Sonar
thk Thickness
TAP Tapis Pumping Platform
UTS Ultimate Tensile Strength
WGK Wood Group Kenny
WT Wall Thickness

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 16 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

2.0 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations


2.1 Summary

2.1.1 Introduction

The FFP assessments of the Seligi and PM8 pipelines were carried out for the following aspects:
 Free span assessments.
 Review of pipeline internal inspections and underwater pipeline survey.
 Corrosion defect assessment to determine the Safe Working Pressure (SWP) of the pipeline.
 Corrosion rate estimation based on current operating conditions
 Remaining life estimation (duration until repair/pressure derating is required) of the pipeline
based on the estimated corrosion rate.
 Condition assessments covering pipeline coating damage, metallic debris and cathodic
protection system.

2.1.2 Free Span Assessment

Pipeline allowable free span lengths for Seligi and PM8 pipelines have been determined in
accordance with DNV-RP-F105 (February 2006) [Ref. 44]. The acceptance of pipeline free spanning
defined in this report is based on the avoidance of vortex induced vibration (VIV) criterion.

Current operating data have been considered in the calculation of pipeline allowable free spans
length for Seligi and PM8 pipelines.

Free span assessment for Seligi and PM8 pipelines were conducted based on the latest free spans
identified during the ROV underwater pipeline inspection in 2015 conducted by Subsea Explore
Services [Ref. 1 to 16] and side scan sonar (SSS) inspection in 2015 conducted by Pageo [Ref. 17 &
18].

The criticalities of the free spans were assessed based on Level 1 screening assessment. Level 1
screening assessment covers the estimation of the vortex induced vibration (VIV) onset allowable
span length.

Due to the large number of free spans that have exceeded the allowable spans, a traffic light
screening of the spans has been adopted. The screening was based on four levels of criticality (low,
medium, significant and high). The criticality ranking is based on percentage (%) in excess of
allowable spans, as defined in Table 4-1.

The Level 1 free span assessment findings for Seligi and PM8 pipelines are shown in Table 2-1.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 17 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 2-1 Summary of Free Spans Assessment – Criticality Ranking


No of spans exceeding allowable (based on current
operating condition) - Criticality Ranking
Id.
Notation LOW MEDIUM SIGNIFICANT HIGH TOTAL
#
<10% >10% & <25% >25% & <40% >40%
1 18” SEA - TAP 3 1 0 1 5
2 18" SEB - SEA 0 1 2 1 4
3 12” SEC - SEA 0 0 0 0 0
4 12” SED - SEA 0 0 0 0 0
5 18" SEE - SEA 2 0 0 0 2
6 12" SEG - SEA 0 0 0 0 0
7 12” SEF - SED 0 0 0 0 0
10” SEH - Subsea Hot
8 Tap (pipeline SEB- 6 2 1 0 9
SEA)
10 10" SEA - SEB 1 5 4 2 12
11 10" SEA - SED 0 7 9 8 24
12 6" SEA - SEG 3 0 1 0 4
13 6” SED - SEC 5 2 1 1 9
14 8" SEB - SEE 2 0 1 1 4
15 6" SED - SEF 0 0 1 0 1
6” Subsea Hot Tap
16 (pipeline SEA-SEB) - 3 1 1 5 10
SEH
17 24” SEA - ANGSI 1 0 2 1 4
18 16” RAA - SEA 7 3 1 3 14
19 18” LWA - SEA 13 15 5 1 34
12” SRA - Subsea
21 Lateral Tie-In (pipeline 8 9 1 0 18
LWA-SEA)
22 8” SEA - LWA 46 58 25 140 269
8” Lateral Tie-in
23 (pipeline SEA-RAA) - 0 0 0 0 0
RAA
6” Subsea Lateral Tie-
24 In (pipeline RAA-LWA) 0 0 0 0 0
- SRA
6” Subsea Hot Tap
25 (pipeline SEA-RAA) - 0 2 0 0 2
RAB
TOTAL 104 108 58 166 436

The free span results in graphical plots are as shown in Figure 5-1 to Figure 5-23. The plots indicate
the number of reported spans along the pipeline length from Subsea Explore and Pageo inspections,
with their corresponding KP locations and the number of spans exceeding the allowable spans.

Comparison of spans between the 2015 inspections (by Subsea Explore and Pageo) and previous
historical free spans (as per reported in the EMEPMI report provided [Ref. 92 to 95]) on 3 pipelines
(Id. No. 1, 2, and 19) show that similar spans have either increase or decrease in the span length
(refer Table 5-17, Table 5-18 and Table 5-19).

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 18 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

2.1.3 Corrosion Defect Assessment

Corrosion defect assessment of the Seligi and PM8 pipelines have been performed to determine the
safe working pressures (SWP) of the defects at the time of inspection based on RSTRENG [Ref. 42]
using Simplified Method.

The assessment covers both single and interacting defects (if any), and the pressure assessment is
based on the current operating pressures of the pipelines. Interacting defects assessment is based
on DNV-RP-F101 Part B Allowable Stress Design (ASD) [Ref. 43].

The estimated remaining lives of the pipelines (i.e. duration until repair or pressure derating is
required) have been performed based on the worst internal corrosion features. The estimated
remaining lives are calculated based on growth of the corrosion features using corrosion rates
calculated from ECE5. The corrosion rates calculated are based on current operating conditions
only.

The key findings of the corrosion defect assessments on all pipelines with and without ILI reports are
summarized in Table 2-2, Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 respectively.

Table 2-2 summarizes the FFP result (pipelines with ILI) based on the Reduced MAOP (MAOP is
taken as 1.1 x Maximum Operating Pressure from daily operating pressure profile). The presented
remaining life is based on the duration until the current identified worst corrosion defect reaches
80%WT depth (criteria as per ASME B31G).

Table 2-3 shows the FFP results (pipelines with ILI) based on actual Design MAOP. The presented
remaining life is based on the duration until the worst SWP goes below the MAOP (or ERF>1).

Table 2-4 summarizes the FFP results for pipeline with no ILI. The presented remaining life is based
on the duration until the current identified worst corrosion defect reaches 80%WT depth.

Table 2-5 summarizes the FFP assessment based on de-rated Design Pressure (pressure as
provided by EnQuest). Only 6 pipelines which have low remaining life as per Table 2-2 were
assessed using reduced pressure. The minimum required wall thickness based on the de-rated
design pressure is calculated using DNV-OS-F101, ASME B31.4 and API RP 1111 codes based on
the pressure containment/internal overpressure criteria, and the highest value is utilized for the
estimation of remaining life.

Based on the results in Table 2-2, Table 2-3, Table 2-4 and Table 2-5, summary of main results are
as follows:

 Pipeline internal inspections carried out by various vendors using MFL tool have identified metal
loss features due to corrosion on all 14 of the pipelines.

 The following are the three most badly reported internal corrosion features on the pipelines:-

1) Pipeline Id. No.5 (18” SEE-SEA FWS) has the worst reported corrosion i.e. corrosion
depth of 84%WT (inclusive of inspection tool accuracy). The year of the ILI was 2015.

2) Pipeline Id. No. 2 (18” SEB-SEA). It recorded a corrosion feature of 78% (defect depth is
inclusive of inspection tool accuracy). The ILI was carried out in 2006.

3) Pipeline Id. No. 19 (8” LWA-SEA). It recorded a corrosion feature of 62% (defect depth is
inclusive of inspection tool accuracy). The ILI was carried out in 2015.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 19 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

 SWP assessment performed on the corrosion features using RSTRENG, for single isolated
defect with the Reduced MAOP(Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure) has shown that all of
the corrosion features were acceptable i.e. ERF< 1.

 SWP assessment based on the Design MAOP was also performed at the Client’s request so as
to determine if any of the pipeline required ‘formal’ derating. Results show that based on the
worst corrosion feature, two pipelines have SWP lower than the Design MAOP i.e. ERF >1).
The pipelines are Pipeline Id. No. 5 (18" SEE – SEA) and 19 (18” LWA – SEA).

 Assessment based on the de-rated pressure shows that the wall thicknesses of pipeline Id. No.
5 and 18 have already reached the minimum required wall thickness in 2011 and 2013
respectively.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 20 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 2-2 Corrosion Defect Assessment Results (for pipelines with ILI) – based on Reduced MAOP (as per current operating pressure profile)
No. of Worst Defect Worst Defect Depth - Worst Defect Depth - Depth
Worst SWP (MPa) Worst ERF Remaini
Design Assessed Reduced Location Reported (%WT) Assessed (%WT)[3] > ECE CR
Id WT ng Life -
Pipe Name Pressure Corrosion MAOP 80%WT (mm/
.# (mm) ECE
(MPa) Features (MPa)[5] Int. Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Ext. Int. Ext. (Yes/ yr)
CR(yr)[4]
(ILI year)[2] No)
18” SEA - 11.9/ 229(2008) Riser 40(2008) 43(2008) 55(2008) 58(2008) 9.23(2008) 10.14(2008) 0.22(2008) 0.20(2008)
1 10.2 2.05 PL No 0.05 40
TAP 7.9 362(2014) TAP 31(2014) 28(2014) 41(2014) 43(2014) 8.90(2014) 7.71(2014) 0.23(2014) 0.27(2014)
18” SEB - 28.5/
2 23.93 9246(2006) 7.66 PL NA 63 NA 78 NA 24.01 NA 0.32 NA No 0.21 2
SEA 19.1
72,70,66 82,82,80
18” SEE - 25.4/ 54,740(2010) Riser 29(2010) 39(2010) 18.47(2010) 29.65(2010) 0.25(2010) 0.15(2010)
5 23.93 4.54 PL (2010) (2010) Yes (1) 0.07 0[6]
SEA 19.1 45,189(2015) SEA 10(2015) 25(2015) 17.27(2015) 29.77(2015) 0.26(2015) 0.15(2015)
64(2015) 84 (2015)
12” SEG - 1(2006) 18(2006) 28(2006) 28.90(2006) 0.15(2006)
6 12.7 24.03 4.33 PL NA NA NA NA NA No 0.35 17
SEA 1(2013) 20(2013) 35(2013) 26.02(2013) 0.17(2013)
10” SEA - 15.9/ 4.20E-
10 23.93 126(2006) 17.10 PL PL 20 31 30 41 25.5 23.08 0.67 0.74 No >40
SEB 11.1 04
10” SEA - 15.9/ 8(2011) 21(2011) 15(2011) 31(2011) 30(2011) 26.65(2011) 25.48(2011) 0.65(2011) 0.68(2011) 1.03E-
11 23.93 17.30 PL PL No >40
SED 11.1 8(2015) 16(2015) NA(2015) 31(2015) NA(2015) 23.36(2015) NA(2015) 0.66(2015) NA(2015) 04
6” SEA - 0(1996) Riser 4.52E-
12 9.5 24.03 17.60 PL 13 39 32 54 27.08 23.34 0.65 0.75 No >40
SEG 46(2012) SEA 04
6” SED - Riser 1.90E-
13 9.5 23.93 8(2012) 17.74 PL 10 16 20 26 41.65 27.64 0.43 0.64 No >40
SEC SEC 04
8” SEB - 0(1998) Riser Riser 6.60E-
14 12.7 23.93 17.84 16 27 26 37 29.19 28.92 0.61 0.62 No >40
SEE 17(2011) SEB SEE 04
6” SED - Riser 2.00E-
15 9.7 24.33 16(2012) 17.85 PL 16 16 38 46 27.35 22.31 0.65 0.80 No >40
SEF SEF 04
24” SEA - 22.2/ 1176(2004) 28(2004) 36(2004) 43(2004) 46(2004) 17.07(2004) 15.58(2004) 0.83(2004) 0.91(2004) 5.77E-
17 15.04 14.16 PL PL No >40
ANGSI 15.9 98(2012) 22(2011) 21(2012) 32(2011) 31(2012) 18.24(2012) 18.97(2011) 0.78(2012) 0.75(2012) 05
16” RAA -
18 15.9 17.9 139(2004) 3.82 PL PL 25 23 35 33 23.36 27.83 0.16 0.14 No 1.34 5
SEA
18” LWA – 19.1/ 3055(2012) 41(2012) NA(2012) 61(2012) NA(2012) 16.43(2012) NA(2012) 0.29(2012) NA(2012)
19 17.9 4.83 PL PL No 1.09 2
SEA 14.3 3626(2015) 42(2015) 29(2015) 62(2015) 44(2015) 15.34(2015) 22.13(2015) 0.31(2015) 0.22(2015)
8” SEA - 9.5/ Riser 8.90E-
22 17.9 542(2011) 16.90 PL 32 23 42 34 18.58 19.87 0.91 0.85 No >40
LWA 8.7 SEA 04
Notes:
1) Int. – Internal; Ext. – External; PL – Pipeline; yr – year; NA – Not available.
2) Total corrosion features as assessed (features are inclusive of manufacturing defects higher than milling WT tolerance and have been considered as corrosion, removal of duplicate defects, etc).
3) Defect depth is inclusive of inspection tool accuracy as per Table 3-6.
4) Remaining life for worst defect to reach 80% WT depth and require repair. For corrosion growth, similar corrosion rate is utilized for both defect depth and length.
5) MAOP utilized for the assessment is assumed as 1.1 x Maximum Operating Pressure from daily operating pressure profile data from 8 January 2014 to 7 January 2016 [Ref. 40].
6) Remaining life based on 80%WT criteria. If the criteria is stretched beyond 80%WT and based on the leak check criteria, remaining life of worst defect ranges from 3yr to 49yr for different %WT loss up till 100%.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 21 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 2-3 Corrosion Defect Assessment Results (for pipelines with ILI) – based on Design MAOP
Worst Worst
Design Design Pressure ECE CR
Id. WT Internal External ERF ERF ILI Remaining Life - ECE
Pipe Name Pressure MAOP De-rating (mm/
# (mm) SWP SWP (Internal) (External) Year CR(yr)[2]
(MPa) (MPa) (Y/N) yr)[1]
(MPa) (MPa)
11.9/
1 18” SEA - TAP 10.2 5.0 8.90 7.71 0.56 0.65 2014 N 0.05 40
7.9
28.5/
2 18” SEB - SEA 23.93 21.4 24.01 NA 0.89 NA 2006 N 0.21 14
19.1
25.4/
5 18” SEE - SEA 23.93 23.9 17.27 29.77 1.38 0.80 2015 Y 0.07 NA[3]
19.1
6 12” SEG - SEA 12.7 24.03 23.9 26.02 NA 0.92 NA 2013 N 0.35 6
15.9/
10 10” SEA - SEB 23.93 21.4 25.50 23.08 0.84 0.93 2006 N 4.20E-04 >40
11.1
15.9/
11 10” SEA - SED 23.93 21.4 26.36 NA 0.81 NA 2016 N 1.03E-04 >40
11.1

12 6” SEA - SEG 9.5 24.03 22.8 27.08 23.34 0.84 0.98 2012 N 4.52E-04 >40

13 6” SED - SEC 9.5 23.93 23.9 41.65 27.64 0.57 0.87 2012 N 1.90E-04 >40
14 8” SEB - SEE 12.7 23.93 23.9 29.19 28.92 0.82 0.83 2011 N 6.60E-04 >40
15 6” SED - SEF 9.7 24.33 15.5 27.35 22.31 0.57 0.69 2012 N 2.00E-04 >40
24” SEA - 22.2/
17 15.04 15.0 18.24 18.97 0.82 0.79 2012 N 5.77E-05 >40
ANGSI 15.9
18 16” RAA - SEA 15.9 17.9 17.9 23.36 27.83 0.77 0.64 2004 N 1.34 7
19.1/
19 18” LWA – SEA 17.9 17.9 15.34 22.13 1.17 0.81 2015 Y 1.09 NA[3]
14.3
9.5/
22 8” SEA - LWA 17.9 17.9 18.58 19.87 0.96 0.90 2011 N 8.90E-04 >40
8.7
Notes:
1) For corrosion growth. similar corrosion rate is utilized for both defect depth and length
2) Remaining life until worst defect ERF>1 and require pressure derating.
3) Not applicable as worst defect ERF>1

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 22 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 2-4 Corrosion Defect Assessment Results (for pipelines without ILI)
ECE Estimated Remaining
Id. WT Year Length
Pipeline Service Status Material CR Wall Loss Life - ECE Note
# (mm) Installed (km)
(mm/yr) (%WT) CR(yr)
3 12” SEC – SEA 14.3/11.1 2011 5.62 FWS Operating CRA clad
No expected corrosion in CO2 service due to CRA
4 12” SED – SEA 14.3/11.1 2011 3.67 FWS Operating CRA clad NA NA NA
clad
7 12” SEF – SED 14.3/11.1 2011 4.35 FWS Operating CRA clad
10” SEH - Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline SEB- Pipeline will have remaining life of 4 years until the
8 14.3 2000 2.30 FWS Operating CS 0.80 56 4
SEA) defect reaches 80%WT.[1]
6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline SEA-SEB) -
16 8.78 2000 1.78 Gas Operating CS 9.1E-04 NA >40 Corrosion rate is insignificant
SEH
12” SRA - Subsea Lateral Tie-In (pipeline Pipeline will have remaining life of 10 years until
21 14.3/9.5 2001 14.00 FWS Operating CS 0.34 45 10
LWA-SEA) the defect reaches 80%WT. [1]
8” Lateral Tie-in RAA - LWA (pipeline RAA-
23 9.5 2001 0.22 Gas Operating CS 1.1E-03 NA >40 Corrosion rate is insignificant
LWA)
6” Subsea Lateral Tie-In (pipeline RAA-
24 8.7 2001 0.06 Gas Operating CS 1.8E-03 NA >40 Corrosion rate is insignificant
LWA) - SRA
6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline SEA-RAA) -
25 8.7 2001 0.92 Gas Operating CS 1.8E-03 NA >40 Corrosion rate is insignificant
RAB
Notes:
1) Remaining life is calculated as of present year (2016).

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 23 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 2-5 Corrosion Defect Assessment Results (for pipelines with ILI) – based on De-rated Pressure
Pipeline Derated Worst Worst Worst Minimum Required Wall Remaining
Design Worst Defect Thickness (mm)
[3] Corrosion
Pipeline Original Design Defect Defect Defect Wall Life from Repair
Id. # Pressure ILI Year Remaining Rate
Name WT Pressure Location Nominal Loss as per last IP Year
(MPa) [1] [2] WT (mm) DNV-OS- ASME API RP (mm/year) [4]
(mm) (MPa) (m) WT (mm) ILI (%) (Years)
F101 B31.4 1111
18" SEB - 28.5,
2 23.93 4.1 2006 677.34 19.1 78 4.20 2.94 3.15 3.08 0.21 5 2011
SEA 19.1
18" SEE - 25.4,
5 23.93 4.1 2015 1,780.08 19.1 84 3.06 2.78 2.9 2.94 0.07 2 2017
SEA 19.1
10” SEH -
Subsea
[6] [5]
8 Hot Tap 14.3 22.3 4.1 2016 NA 14.3 56 6.29 1.85 1.74 1.75 0.8 6 2022
(pipeline
SEB-SEA)
16” RAA -
18 15.9 17.9 4.3 2008 10,757.00 15.9 35 10.34 3.3 3.37 3.3 1.34 5 2013
SEA
18” LWA - 19.1,
19 17.9 4.3 2015 34,782.40 14.3 62 5.43 2.93 3.05 3.08 1.09 2 2017
SEA 14.3
12” SRA -
Subsea
Lateral [6] [5]
21 14.3, 9.5 17.9 4.3 2016 NA 9.5 45 5.23 2.25 2.16 2.18 0.34 9 2025
Tie-In
(pipeline
LWA-SEA)
Notes:
1. De-rated pressure as provided by EnQuest
2. Wall loss is inclusive of the inspection tool accuracy as per Table 3-6.
3. Minimum required wall thickness is based on pressure containment/internal overpressure criteria.
4. Duration until the wall thickness at current wall loss equal to the minimum required thickness (taken from the highest value).
5. NA=not available. Line is without ILI
6. For lines with no ILI, worst defect was conservatively estimated up to present year (2016).

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 24 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

 Additionally, interacting defects were identified at most pipelines (with ILI) as presented in Table
2-6. The ERF based on the Reduced MAOP shows that no pipelines have interacting defects with
ERF>1 during the inspection year. However, ERF checks based on Design MAOP shows that 5
pipelines have ERF >1 (based on the worst interacting corrosion defect). The pipelines are:

1) Pipeline Id No. 2 (18" SEB – SEA)


2) Pipeline Id No. 5 (18" SEE – SEA)
3) Pipeline Id No. 12 (6" SEA – SEG)
4) Pipeline Id No. 19 (18” LWA – SEA)
5) Pipeline Id No. 22 (8” SEA – LWA)

Table 2-6 Summary of Interacting Defect Results


Worst Interacting Defect Data
Total
ILI ERF- ERF-
Id. # Pipeline Name Interacting Distance SWP
Year Surface Reduced Design
Defect (m) [1]
(MPa)
MAOP MAOP
2008 30 50,697.56 Internal 8.60 0.24 0.73
1 18” SEA - TAP
2014 65 52,317.29 Internal 8.37 0.24 0.60
2 18" SEB - SEA 2006 1634 302.14 Internal 20.41 0.38 1.17
2010 6893 1,347.66 Internal 18.50 0.25 1.29
5 18" SEE - SEA
2015 266 224.29 Internal 19.11 0.24 1.25
2006 - - - - - -
6 12" SEG - SEA
2013 - - - - - -
10 10" SEA - SEB 2006 5 3,733.2 External 25.97 0.66 0.92
2011 - - - - - -
11 10" SEA - SED
2015 - - - - - -
1996 - - - - - -
12 6" SEA - SEG
2012 2 27.19 External 24.03 0.73 1.0
13 6” SED - SEC 2012 - - - - - -
1998 - - - - - -
14 8" SEB - SEE
2011 5 3,800.39 External 25.54 0.70 0.94
15 6" SED - SEF 2012 3 4,513.85 External 23.47 0.76 0.66
24” SEA – 2004 197 173.9 External 15.88 0.89 0.94
17
ANGSI 2012 27 81,672.07 Internal 24.57 0.58 0.61
18 16” RAA - SEA 2008 8 10,756.63 Internal 27.06 0.17 0.79
2012 170 26,260.43 Internal 15.69 0.31 1.14
19 18” LWA - SEA
2015 200 8,646.67 Internal 14.68 0.33 1.22
22 8” SEA - LWA 2012 3 4.09 Internal 17.75 0.952 1.01

 For Pipeline Id No. 5; 18” SEE-SEA, FWS pipeline, since the identified worst defect from ILI have
exceeded the 80%WT for both ILI runs, further assessment were conducted to identify the
potential failure mode (whether by leak or rupture) of the defects when reaching full wall loss.
Based on the assessment as per approach in the Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual [Ref. 51],
the defects were identified to fail via leak failure mode as it has a SWP lower than the failure
pressure (as shown in Figure 5-37 and Figure 5-38). In addition, the measured defect lengths
were lower than the critical rupture length (as shown in Table 5-45) to be considered as rupture.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 25 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

2.1.4 Remaining Life

To determine the remaining life (duration until repair/pressure derating is required) of the pipelines,
internal corrosion rates of the pipelines were estimated based on current operating conditions.
Reference is made to Table 5-23 of this report for the estimated corrosion rates utilized in the
remaining life estimation. Based on the current remaining wall thickness of the pipelines, the
durations taken to corrode the pipe wall until it reaches 80% WT of the pipelines were estimated.

2.1.4.1 With ILI Data

The Pipelines with estimated low remaining life (until the depth reaches 80%WT) and the estimated
year where repair is required on the worst corroded defect of each pipeline are presented in Table 2-
7 below.

Table 2-7 Estimated Repair Year of Worst Corrosion Feature


ECE
Latest
PL Distance Depth Orientation CR Remaining Repair
Id. ILI Note
Name (m)[1] (%WT)[2] (hrs:min) (mm/ Life (yr) Year
Year
year)
18" Pipeline will have remaining
2 SEB - 2006 677.34 78 6:10 0.21 2 2008 life of 2 years until the defect
SEA reaches 80%WT.
18" Pipeline already has
5 SEE - 2015 1,780.08 84 5:16 0.07 0 2015 corrosion feature exceeding
SEA 80%WT.
16” Pipeline will have remaining
18 RAA - 2008 10,757.0 35 12:28 1.34 5 2013 life of 5 years until the defect
SEA reaches 80%WT.
18” Pipeline will have remaining
19 LWA - 2015 34,782.4 62 5:10 1.09 2 2017 life of 2 years until the defect
SEA reaches 80%WT
Notes:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are inclusive of the inspection tool accuracy (as per Table 3-6).

The low remaining life of the above pipelines are due to significant corrosion rates as the lines are
transporting FWS (as estimated using ECE). The rest of the pipelines have significant remaining life
with estimated life of greater than 40 years because the estimated corrosion rates are very low in
general (non FWS pipelines).

In the event that the corrosion defects of the above pipelines have been repaired, the remaining life
of the repaired pipeline will be based on the next worst corrosion feature. The next worst corrosion
feature and its corresponding estimated repair year has been estimated and is presented in Table 2-
8.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 26 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 2-8 Next Worst Corrosion Feature and Estimated Repair Year
Latest
PL Distance Depth Orientation CR (mm/ Remaining Repair
Id. ILI Note[3]
Name (m)[1] (%WT)[2] (hrs:min) year) Life (yr) Year
Year
Remaining corrosion
18" features have remaining
2 SEB - 2006 314.21 73 10:33 0.21 6 2012 life in the range of 13-50
SEA years to reach 80%WT
loss
Remaining corrosion
18"
features have remaining
5 SEE - 2015 1,231.86 73 5:43 0.07 19 2034
life greater than 20 years
SEA
to reach 80%WT loss
Due to significant
corrosion rate, all
16”
corrosion features have
18 RAA - 2008 265.2 33 5:23 1.37 5 2013
remaining life in the range
SEA
5-7 years to reach 80%
WT loss
Due to significant
corrosion rate, all
18”
corrosion features have
19 LWA – 2015 20,551.5 58 6:30 1.09 3 2018
remaining life in the range
SEA
2-9 years to reach 80%
WT loss
Notes:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths inclusive of the inspection tool accuracy (as per Table 3-6).
3) Refer Appendix S for the estimated year of 25 worst defects for all pipelines.

2.1.4.2 Without ILI Data

In the case where the pipelines have no ILI data, current state of the pipe wall were assumed to be
similar to their respective connecting pipeline.

The two pipelines with no In Line Inspection (ILI) (Pipelines Id. No. 8 and 21 with FWS service) were
estimated using the ILI data from their respective connecting lines (Pipelines Id. No. 2 and 19). The
estimated remaining life for pipeline Id. No. 8 and 21 respectively is 4 and 10 years. It must be
pointed out that the current condition of the 2 pipelines is estimated only.

Pipelines Id. No. 3, 4 and 7 are Corrosion Resistant Alloy (CRA) clad. As such, the remaining lives
of these lines are not computed as the lines will not be corroded in CO2 service.

Pipelines Id. No. 16, 23, 24 and 25 transport dry gas and hence have minimal estimated corrosion
rated: as such the remaining life of the pipelines are deemed sufficient.

2.1.5 Underwater Inspection Review

ROV underwater pipeline inspection reports [Ref. 1 to 16] have been reviewed. The main results of
the underwater inspection review are summarized as follows:-

 Underwater inspections on all inspected pipelines have identified metal objects at various
locations, which were in contact with the pipeline. No sign of damages were reported at all
locations.

The numbers of objects identified in contact with the pipelines are summarized in Table 2-9 and
details of the objects are presented in Appendix C.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 27 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 2-9 Summary of Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser


Metal
Inspection
Id. # Pipeline Name Inspection Vendor Objects
Year
No.
1 18” SEA - TAP 2015 Subsea Explore Services 2
2 18" SEB - SEA 2015 Subsea Explore Services 2
3 12” SEC – SEA NA
4 12” SED – SEA NA
5 18" SEE - SEA 2015 Subsea Explore Services 8
6 12" SEG - SEA 2010 NA 11
7 12” SEF – SED NA
10” SEH - Subsea Hot Tap
8 2015 Subsea Explore Services 2
(pipeline SEB-SEA)
10 10" SEA - SEB 2015 Subsea Explore Services 10
11 10" SEA - SED 2015 Subsea Explore Services 4
12 6" SEA - SEG 2011 Offshore Subsea Works 4
13 6” SED - SEC 2015 Subsea Explore Services 10
14 8" SEB - SEE 2010 NA 7
15 6" SED - SEF 2011 Offshore Subsea Works 3
6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline
16 2015 Subsea Explore Services 2
SEA-SEB) - SEH
17 24” SEA - ANGSI 2006 SARKU Engineering Services 11
18 16” RAA - SEA 2015 Subsea Explore Services 2
19 18” LWA - SEA 2015 Subsea Explore Services 2
12” SRA - Subsea Lateral Tie-In
21 2015 Subsea Explore Services 5
(pipeline LWA-SEA)
22 8” SEA - LWA 2015 Subsea Explore Services 6
8” Lateral Tie-in RAA - LWA
23 2015 Subsea Explore Services 0
(pipeline RAA-LWA)
6” Subsea Lateral Tie-In
24 2015 Subsea Explore Services 1
(pipeline RAA-LWA) - SRA
6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline
25 2015 Subsea Explore Services 1
SEA-RAA) - RAB

 Weight coating damages were identified at Pipeline Id. No. 1 and 11 and the details are
summarized in Table 2-10. The identified coating damages were in the form of cracks and
missing coating at localized sections of the pipeline. No sign of any damages were reported at
both pipelines. Refer Appendix C for further details on the concrete coating damage findings.

Table 2-10 Pipelines with Concrete Coating Damage


Id. Inspection No of Concrete Damage
Pipeline Name Location
# Year Coating Damage Description
Crack of
various size &
1 18” SEA - TAP 2015 11 Refer Appendix C
spalling
coating
Spalling
12 6" SEA - SEG 2015 1 KP0.318
Coating

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 28 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

2.1.7 Cathodic Protection Review

Cathodic Protection surveys [Ref. 75 to 90] have been reviewed. The main results of the cathodic
protection review are summarized as follows:-

 Cathodic protection of the pipelines was surveyed during the underwater inspection. The
electrical potential readings from the CP probe were observed to be acceptable. However,
there were pipelines with reported anode depletion exceeding 75% and these were reported
as anomalies. The CP readings and anodes with depletion >75% are summarized in Table
2-11. KP locations of anodes with significant depletion are also presented in Table 2-12.
(Refer Appendix D for detail findings of the CP inspection).

Table 2-11 CP Readings and Estimated Depletion >75% at Pipeline


No of
CP reading (mV)
anodes
Id. Year of
Pipeline Inspection Vendor with
# Inspection
min max depletion
>75%
1 18” SEA - TAP 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -917 -1072 1
2 18" SEB - SEA 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -1036 -967 3
3 12” SEC – SEA NA
4 12” SED – SEA NA
5 18" SEE - SEA 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -953 -1061 18
6 12" SEG - SEA 2010 NA -991 -1021 1
7 12” SEF – SED NA
10” SEH - Subsea Hot
8 Tap (pipeline SEB- 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -932 -1025 4
SEA)
10 10" SEA - SEB 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -850 -1049 2
11 10" SEA - SED 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -945 -1036 22
12 6" SEA - SEG 2011 Offshore Subsea Works -979 -1039 NA
13 6” SED - SEC 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -953 -1020 9
14 8" SEB - SEE 2010 NA -1016 -951 NA
15 6" SED - SEF 2011 Offshore Subsea Works -995 -1012 NA
6” Subsea Hot Tap
16 (pipeline SEA-SEB) - 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -928 -1019 1
SEH
SARKU Engineering
17 24” SEA - ANGSI 2006 -1006 -1057 NA
Services
18 16” RAA - SEA 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -971 -1046 0
19 18” LWA - SEA 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -979 -1055 2
12” SRA - Subsea
21 Lateral Tie-In (pipeline 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -998 -1050 1
LWA-SEA)
22 8” SEA - LWA 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -943 -1054 4
8” Lateral Tie-in RAA -
23 LWA (pipeline RAA- 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -1005 -1028 0
LWA)
6” Subsea Lateral Tie-
24 In (pipeline RAA-LWA) 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -908 -1021 1
- SRA
6” Subsea Hot Tap
25 (pipeline SEA-RAA) - 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -943 -1031 4
RAB
Note:
1. NA = Information not available.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 29 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 2-12 KP Location of Anodes with depletion >75%


Id
Pipeline KP
No.

1 18” SEA - TAP 25.512


2 18" SEB - SEA 3.112,3.986,4.101

0.054,0.014,0.178,0.239,0.302,0.364,0.487,0.494,
5 18" SEE - SEA 0.673,0.736,0.797,7.297,7.359,7.421,
7.483,7.544,7.607,7.619

6 12" SEG - SEA 4.445

10” SEH - Subsea Hot Tap


8 0.015,0.039,0.051,0.532
(pipeline SEB-SEA)

10 10" SEA - SEB 4.188,0.312

0.031,0.157,0.28,0.403,0.648,0.773,0.894,
11 10" SEA - SED 1.018,1.262,1.388,1.51,1.633,1.755,2.01,
2.369,2.493,2.617,2.74,2.866,3.113,3.235,3.358

0.035,0.111,0.187,0.263,0.514,
13 6” SED - SEC
0.67,3.084,3.211,3.337
14 8" SEB - SEE 3.58

6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline


16 1.772
SEA-SEB) - SHE

19 18” LWA - SEA 0.219,0.533

12” SRA - Subsea Lateral Tie-


0.193
In (pipeline LWA-SEA)

21
22 8” SEA - LWA 0.016,0.04,0.226,52.522

6” Subsea Lateral Tie-In


24 0.029
(pipeline RAA-LWA) - SRA

6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline


25 0.016,0.162,0.919,0.949
SEA-RAA) - RAB

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 30 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

2.2 Conclusions

2.2.1 Free Span Assessment

Based on the assumptions as stated in Section 4.4 and methodology described in this report, the
following can be concluded:-

a. The number of pipelines with free spans exceeded the allowable spans are 17. These are
Pipelines Id. No. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22 & 25. Details of these
pipelines are shown in Table 2-1.

b. There are 6 numbers of pipelines with no free spans exceeding the allowable spans. These are
Pipelines Id. No. 3, 4, 6, 7, 23 & 24, as shown in Table 2-1.

c. Pipeline Id. No. 22 has the highest number of free spans exceeded the allowable spans and the
details are as shown in Appendix Q.

2.2.2 Corrosion Defect Assessment

Based on the assumptions as stated in Section 4.4 and methodology described in this report, the
following can be concluded:-

a. For 18” SEE-SEA FWS pipeline (Pipeline Id. No. 5), as the depth has exceeded the allowable
criteria (80%WT loss), the pipeline section with the corrosion feature is deemed not fit-for-
purpose and repair on the corroded section is recommended.

b. ERF checks based on the Reduced MAOP for all pipelines were less than 1 for all identified
corrosion features; hence pressure derating (based on the reduced MAOP) was not required at
the time of inspection.

c. ERF checks based on the actual Design MAOP suggest that only pipeline Id. No. 5 and 19 have
require pressure derating (based on the design MAOP) at the time of the ILI runs (year 2015 for
both pipelines).

d. Based on interacting defects results, no pipeline require derating based on the reduced MAOP.
However, checks based on the actual Design MAOP suggest 5 pipelines require pressure
derating (Pipeline Id No. 2, 5, 12, 19 and 22).

e. Besides Pipeline Id. No.5, only 3 pipelines have estimated low remaining life (Pipelines Id. No.2,
18 and 19). The other pipelines have significant remaining life with estimated life of greater than
40 years.

f. For Pipeline Id No. 5, as the failure mode of the corrosion defect is via leak, the pipeline can be
considered to operate beyond the 80%WT allowable limit since failure by leak is likely to be less
severe in comparison to rupture. However, it is the prerogative of the client to decide the
maximum allowable wall loss of the pipeline for continual operation.

g. For Pipeline Id. No. 2, 5 and 18, the estimated repair year has already passed and such,
rectification of the corrosion defect is recommended.

h. For pipelines with no ILI, low remaining life is estimated for Pipelines Id. No. 8 and 21. The
estimated remaining life is 4 years and 10 years respectively. No concern is expected on the
remaining pipelines due to presence of CRA clad (Pipelines Id. No. 3, 4 and 7) and minimal

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 31 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

expected corrosion rate on dry gas pipelines (Pipelines Id. No. 16, 23, 24 and 25).

i. Assessment based on de-rated pressure shows that the worst defect for pipelines ID 2, 5, 18
and 19 need to be rectified.

j. It can be concluded that the integrity of majority of the PM8/Seligi pipelines are likely to remain
acceptable. However the integrity of 4 pipelines (Pipelines Id. No. 2, 5, 18 and 19) are at risk as
they have corrosion defects with depth exceeding 80%WT and have estimated low remaining
life.

2.2.3 Underwater Inspection Review

Based on findings, the following can be concluded:-

a. Reported metallic objects do not impose any significant threat to the integrity of the pipeline.

b. The identified weight coating damages were in the form of cracking and spalling at localised
sections. These are not deemed to be detrimental to the overall stability of the pipeline.

2.2.4 Cathodic Protection Review

Based on the findings, the following can be concluded:-

a. All pipelines have good cathodic protection levels at the time of inspection.

b. As per Table 2-11, 14 pipelines have anodes with estimated depletion 75% and higher.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 32 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

2.3 Recommendations

2.3.1 Free Span Assessment

Based on the free span assessment for Seligi and PM8 pipelines, the following are recommended:-

a. For pipelines with spans exceeding the allowable span limit based on Level 1 checks, further
assessment (Level 2 and 3) is recommended.

2.3.2 Corrosion Defect Assessment

Based on the corrosion defect assessment for Seligi and PM8 pipelines, the following are
recommended:-

a. Corrosion rates for Fitness-for-Purpose study are calculated and summarized in Table 5-23.
These corrosion rates represent current operating condition to determine Safe Working Pressure
and Remaining Life as of Year 2016. These corrosion rates shall be reviewed and revised if
future changes in operating parameters are anticipated.
b. Note that there is no actual monitoring on corrosion inhibitor availability (number of days with CI
at correct dosage / 365 days) for Seligi and PM8 pipelines other than target and actual dosage.
The corrosion dosages should be recorded in order to quantify actual corrosion protection
received by these pipelines and rectify any situation with improvement plan/s.
c. As there is sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB) recorded in recent sampling analysis, it is
recommended to start hydrogen sulphide (H2S) monitoring to initiate mitigation plan when there
exists likelihood of souring due to seawater injection or contamination from open system i.e.
drain. Bacteria mapping can be carried out to justify the location of contamination source in order
to implement proper biocide programme and reroute contamination source to other location.
d. Dew point meters should be installed linked to an alarm system to alert operators to review the
gas drying and compression system, and, if necessary initiate an inhibitor treatment of the gas
lift gas.
e. The worst corroded defect (as per Table 2-2Error! Reference source not found.) on pipelines
Id. No. 2, 5, 18 and 19 needs to be repaired.
f. Continue with the pipeline inspection and monitoring program to ensure the integrity of the
pipeline system is maintained. Continuous pipeline monitoring is recommended to ensure that
there are no significant changes in the operating conditions or product compositions which could
aggravate the defect, and eventually would require pipeline repair and/or pressure derating.
g. Based on the Design MAOP and single defect assessment, pipelines Id No. 5 and 9 need to be
pressure derated. In addition, results from interacting defect assessment suggest that pipeline Id
no. 2, 12 and 22 needs to be pressure derated.
h. For lines with no ILI conducted to date (especially pipeline Id. No. 8 and 21), pipeline remaining
wall assessment is recommended to ascertain the current wall loss on the pipeline to reduce the
conservativeness in the remaining life estimation.
i. The current corrosion mitigation and management measures should be maintained, and any
changes to operating conditions should be assesses to ascertain any potential integrity impact
on the corroded sections of the pipeline.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 33 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

2.3.3 Underwater Inspection Review

Based on the underwater inspection review, the following are recommended:-

a. Pipelines with concrete coating damages as reported in underwater inspections (as per Error!
Reference source not found.) need to be monitored with regular surveys and monitoring work
to prevent further deterioration.

2.3.4 Cathodic Protection Review

Based on the CP inspection review, the following are recommended:-

a. Regular surveys and monitoring especially at locations which showed significant anode
depletion to ensure continuous protection (KP locations as per Table 2-12).

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 34 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

3.0 Assessment Input Data


3.1 General

This section presents the input data which was used for the FFP assessment of Seligi and PM8 pipelines.

3.2 Existing Pipe Properties

The existing pipe properties data of Seligi and PM8 pipelines are summarised in Table 3-1 below.

Table 3-1 Existing Pipe Properties


Pipeline Pipe
Id. Year Nominal WT
Pipeline Name Service Length Diameter Material Grade Pipe Type Ref.
# Commissioned (mm)
(km) (mm)
Longitudinal
1 18” SEA - TAP Crude 52.29 1988 457 API 5L X60 11.9[1], 7.9[2] 54
Weld
18” SEA - TAP (Partial Longitudinal
1(a) Crude 21.18 2006 457 API 5L X60 11.9 54
replacement) Weld
[1] [2]
2 18" SEB - SEA FWS 4.36 1988 457 API 5L X60 28.5 , 19.1 Seamless 55
3 12” SEC - SEA FWS 5.62 2011 323.9 API 5L X65 14.3[3], 11.1[4] Seamless 56
4 12” SED - SEA FWS 3.67 2011 323.9 API 5L X65 14.3[3], 11.1[4] Seamless 57
5 18" SEE - SEA FWS 7.64 1992 457 API 5L X65 25.4[1], 19.1[2] Seamless 58
6 12" SEG - SEA FWS 4.5 1991 323.9 API 5L X65 12.7 Seamless 59
7 12” SEF - SED FWS 4.35 2011 323.9 API 5L X65 14.3[3], 11.1[4] Seamless 60
10” SEH - Subsea Hot Tap
8 FWS 2.3 2000 273 API 5L X65 14.3 Seamless 61
(pipeline SEB-SEA)
[1] [2]
10 10" SEA - SEB Gas 4.49 1988 273 API 5L X60 15.9 , 11.1 Seamless 62
11 10" SEA - SED Gas 3.55 1988 273 API 5L X60 15.9[1], 11.1[2] Seamless 63
12 6" SEA - SEG Gas 4.7 1991 168.3 API 5L X65[1], X52[2] 9.5 Seamless 64
13 6” SED - SEC Gas 3.4 1996 168.3 API 5L X65 9.5 Seamless 65
14 8" SEB - SEE Gas 3.6 1992 219.1 API 5L X52 12.7 Seamless 66
15 6" SED - SEF Gas 4.6 1997 168.3 API 5L X65 9.7 Seamless 33
16 6” Subsea Hot Tap Gas 1.78 2000 168.3 API 5L X65 8.7 Seamless 67

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 35 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Pipeline Pipe
Id. Year Nominal WT
Pipeline Name Service Length Diameter Material Grade Pipe Type Ref.
# Commissioned (mm)
(km) (mm)
(pipeline SEA-SEB) - SEH
Longitudinal
17 24” SEA - ANGSI Gas 81.88 2002 609.6 API 5L X65 22.2[3], 15.9[4] 68
Weld
18 16” RAA - SEA FWS 23.46 2004 406.4 API 5L X65, X52 15.9 Seamless 69
[3] [4] Seam
19 18” LWA - SEA FWS 45.35 2001 457 API 5L X65 19.1 , 14.3 70
Welded
12” SRA - Subsea Lateral
21 FWS 14 2001 323.9 API 5L X65 14.3[3], 9.5[4] Seamless 71
Tie-In (pipeline LWA-SEA)
[3] [4]
22 8” SEA - LWA Gas 59.4 1997 219.1 API 5L X65, X52 9.5 , 8.7 Seamless 72
8” Lateral Tie-in (pipeline
23 Gas 0.022 2001 219.1 API 5L X65 9.5 Seamless 72
SEA-RAA) - RAA
6” Subsea Lateral Tie-In
24 Gas 0.06 2001 168.3 API 5L X65 8.7 Seamless 73
(pipeline RAA-LWA) - SRA
6” Subsea Hot Tap
25 Gas 0.92 2001 168.3 API 5L X65 8.7 Seamless 74
(pipeline SEA-RAA) - RAB
Notes:
1) Riser section.
2) Pipeline section.
3) Zone 2 - The riser which includes the pipework and clamp supports up to and including the pig trap and any riser base, inclusive of a 500m pipe length from the base of the
platform.
4) Zone 1 - The portion of submarine pipeline which extends 500m beyond the base of the platform.

3.3 Existing Operational Data

The existing operational data of Seligi and PM8 pipelines are summarised in Table 3-2.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 36 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 3-2 Existing Operational Data


Existing Operational Data
Id. Content Operating Operating Design Hydrotest Design
Pipeline Name Service MAOP Ref.
# Density Pressure Temperature Pressure Pressure Temperature
(bar)
(kg/m3) (bar) (degC) (bar) (bar) (degC)
1 18” SEA - TAP Crude NA 50 NA 50 102 133 NA 54
1(a) 18” SEA - TAP (Partial replacement) Crude 1000 NA NA 102 102 127.5 65 54
2 18" SEB - SEA FWS NA 214 NA 214 239.3 303 NA 55
3 12” SEC - SEA FWS 24.71 NA NA 190 190 237.5 100 56
4 12” SED - SEA FWS 45.18 NA NA 190 190 237.5 100 57
5 18" SEE - SEA FWS NA NA NA 239 239.3 299.1 NA 58
6 12" SEG - SEA FWS NA 31 NA 239 240.3 300.4 65 59
7 12” SEF - SED FWS 49.37 NA NA 190 190 237.5 95 60
10” SEH - Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline SEB-
8 FWS 1000 NA NA 223 223 278.8 100 61
SEA)
10 10" SEA - SEB Gas NA 214 NA 214 239.3 303 NA 62
11 10" SEA - SED Gas NA 214 NA 214 239.3 303 NA 63
12 6" SEA - SEG Gas NA 227.6 NA 228 240.3 300.4 66 64
13 6” SED - SEC Gas NA NA NA 239 239.3 299.1 65 65
14 8" SEB - SEE Gas NA NA NA 239 239.3 299.1 NA 66
15 6" SED - SEF Gas NA NA NA 155 243.3 NA NA 33
16 6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline SEA-SEB) - SEH Gas 250 NA NA 223 223 278.8 30 67
17 24” SEA - ANGSI Gas 120 NA NA 150 150.4 188 90 68
18 16” RAA - SEA FWS 934 NA NA 179 179 223.8 100 69
19 18” LWA - SEA FWS 1000 NA NA 179 179 223.8 94 70
12” SRA - Subsea Lateral Tie-In (pipeline
21 FWS 1000 NA NA 179 179 223.8 94 71
LWA-SEA)
22 8” SEA - LWA Gas 1000 NA NA 179 179 223.8 30 72
23 8” Lateral Tie-in (pipeline SEA-RAA) - RAA Gas 250 NA NA 179 179 223.8 30 72
6” Subsea Lateral Tie-In (pipeline RAA-LWA) -
24 Gas 250 NA NA 179 179 223.8 30 73
SRA
25 6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline SEA-RAA) - RAB Gas 250 NA NA 179 179 223.8 30 74

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 37 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

3.4 Current Operational Data

The current operational data of Seligi and PM8 pipelines are summarised in Table 3-3 below.

Table 3-3 Current Operational Data


Current Operational Data
Max. Max.
Id. Max. Current
Pipeline Name Service Current Current
# Current Operating
Operating Content
MAOP Temperature
Pressure Density
(bar)[2] (degC)[3]
(bar)[1] (kg/m3)[4]
1 18” SEA - TAP Crude 18.65 20.52 34-36 834
1(a) 18” SEA - TAP (Partial replacement) Crude 18.65 20.52 34-36 834
2 18" SEB - SEA FWS 69.55 76.51 32-37 834
3 12” SEC - SEA FWS 54.84 60.32 35-37 834
4 12” SED - SEA FWS 33.41 36.75 35-37 834
5 18" SEE - SEA FWS 41.33 45.46 44.8-57 834
6 12" SEG - SEA FWS 39.44 43.38 32.5-49.1 834
7 12” SEF - SED FWS 62.23 68.45 35-37 834
8 10” SEH - Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline SEB-SEA) FWS 34.35 37.79 72-75 834
10 10" SEA - SEB Gas 155.13 170.64 72-75 0.9138
11 10" SEA - SED Gas 156.99 172.69 38.3-47.6 0.9138
12 6" SEA - SEG Gas 159.9 175.89 50 0.9138
13 6” SED - SEC Gas 161.26 177.39 19.5-36.5 0.9138
14 8" SEB - SEE Gas 162.21 178.43 77 0.9138
15 6" SED - SEF Gas 162.31 178.54 35-37 0.9138
16 6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline SEA-SEB) - SEH Gas 155.13 170.64 72-75 0.9138
17 24” SEA - ANGSI Gas 128.74 141.61 46 0.9138
18 16” RAA - SEA FWS 34.73 38.20 38-83 834
19 18” LWA - SEA FWS 43.91 48.30 40-64 834
21 12” SRA - Subsea Lateral Tie-In (pipeline LWA-SEA) FWS 43.16 47.48 40-64 834
22 8” SEA - LWA Gas 154.06 169.47 77 0.9138

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 38 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Current Operational Data


Max. Max.
Id. Max. Current
Pipeline Name Service Current Current
# Current Operating
Operating Content
MAOP Temperature
Pressure Density
(bar)[2] (degC)[3]
(bar)[1] (kg/m3)[4]
23 8” Lateral Tie-in (pipeline SEA-RAA) - RAA Gas 154.06 169.47 77 0.9138
24 6” Subsea Lateral Tie-In (pipeline RAA-LWA) - SRA Gas 154.06 169.47 77 0.9138
25 6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline SEA-RAA) - RAB Gas 154.06 169.47 77 0.9138
Notes:
1) Reference 40.
2) Current MAOP is assumed as 1.1 x Maximum Current Operating Pressure.
3) Current Operating Temperature is taken from ILI report (Reference 19 to 39).
4) Reference 96.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 39 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

3.5 Existing Pipe Coating

Pipe coating for Seligi and PM8 pipelines are summarised in Table 3-4 below.

Table 3-4 Pipe Coating Data


External Coating Internal Coating
Concrete
Corrosion Corrosion Corrosion Concrete
Corrosion Corrosion Corrosion Coatings
Id. # Pipeline Name Service Coating Coatings Coating Density Ref.
Thickness
Coating
Density Thickness
Coating
Density
Coatings (kg/m3)
Type Type Thickness (mm)
(kg/m3) 3
(mm) (kg/m )
1 18” SEA - TAP Crude CTE 1400 5 - - - 50 3040 54
18” SEA - TAP (Partial
1(a) Crude 3LPP, AE 980, 1280 3.6, 5 - - - 40 3040 54
replacement)
2 18" SEB - SEA FWS CTE 1400 5 - - - - 3040 55
3 12” SEC - SEA FWS 3LPP 980 3.6 Alloy 825 8000 2.5 mm 40 3040 56
4 12” SED - SEA FWS 3LPP 980 3.6 Alloy 825 8000 2.5 mm 40 3040 57
5 18" SEE - SEA FWS CTE 1400 5 - - - 25 3040 58
6 12" SEG - SEA FWS CTE 1400 5 - - - 50 3040 59
7 12” SEF - SED FWS 3LPP 980 3.6 Alloy 825 8000 2.5 mm 40 3040 60
10” SEH - Subsea Hot Tap
8 FWS 3LPP 980 3.6 - - - 25 3040 61
(pipeline SEB-SEA)
10 10" SEA - SEB Gas CTE 1400 5 - - - - 3040 62
11 10" SEA - SED Gas CTE 1400 5 - - - - 3040 63
12 6" SEA - SEG Gas CTE 1400 5 - - - - 3040 64
13 6” SED - SEC Gas FBE 1450 0.45 - - - 50 3040 65
14 8" SEB - SEE Gas FBE 1450 0.45 - - - - 3040 66
15 6" SED - SEF Gas AE 1280 5 - - - 25 3040 33
6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline
16 Gas AE 1280 5 - - - 30 3040 67
SEA-SEB) - SEH
17 24” SEA - ANGSI Gas 3LPP 980 3.6 - - - 59, 51 3040 68
18 16” RAA - SEA FWS 3LPP, AE 980, 1280 3.6, 5 - - - 45 3040 69
19 18” LWA - SEA FWS 3LPP, AE 980, 1280 3.6, 5 - - - 40 3040 70
12” SRA - Subsea Lateral Tie-In
21 FWS 3LPP, AE 980, 1280 3.6, 5 - - - 40 3040 71
(pipeline LWA-SEA)

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 40 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

External Coating Internal Coating


Concrete
Corrosion Corrosion Corrosion Concrete
Corrosion Corrosion Corrosion Coatings
Id. # Pipeline Name Service Coating Coatings Coating Density Ref.
Thickness
Coating
Density Thickness
Coating
Density
Coatings (kg/m3)
Type Type Thickness (mm)
(kg/m3) 3
(mm) (kg/m )
22 8” SEA - LWA Gas AE 1280 5 - - - 35 3040 72
8” Lateral Tie-in (pipeline SEA-
23 Gas AE 1280 5 - - - 35 3040 72
RAA) - RAA
6” Subsea Lateral Tie-In
24 Gas AE 1280 5 - - - 30 3040 73
(pipeline RAA-LWA) - SRA
6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline
25 Gas AE 1280 5 - - - 30 3040 74
SEA-RAA) - RAB

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 41 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

3.6 Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure based on Current Operating Pressure

The pipeline has been in operation for a significant duration, and the current operating pressure of all
the pipeline is significantly lower compared to the actual Design MAOP of the pipelines. Based on
the operating pressure profile data, dated from 8th January 2014 to 7th January 2016 [Ref. 40] as
illustrated in Appendix A, the mean and maximum operating pressures for the Seligi and PM8
pipelines are as summarized in Table 3-5.

Table 3-5 Mean and Maximum Current Operating Pressure


Operating Pressure (MPa) Reduced
Operating Life
Id. # Pipeline Description MAOP[2]
(Year)[1] Mean Maximum
(MPa)
1 18” SEA - TAP 28 1.50 1.86 2.05
2 18" SEB - SEA 28 1.56 6.96 7.66
3 12” SEC - SEA 5 2.10 5.48 6.03
4 12” SED - SEA 5 1.82 3.34 3.68
5 18" SEE - SEA 24 1.23 4.13 4.54
6 12" SEG - SEA 25 1.61 3.94 4.33
7 12” SEF - SED 5 2.25 6.22 6.84
10” SEH - Subsea Hot Tap
8 16 1.65 3.34 3.78
(pipeline SEB-SEA)
10 10" SEA - SEB 28 14.50 15.50 17.10
11 10" SEA - SED 28 14.50 15.70 17.30
12 6" SEA - SEG 25 12.60 15.90 17.60
13 6” SED - SEC 20 15.20 16.13 17.74
14 8" SEB - SEE 24 14.20 16.22 17.84
15 6" SED - SEF 19 14.94 16.23 17.85
6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline
16 16 14.51 15.51 17.10
SEA-SEB) - SEH
17 24” SEA - ANGSI 14 8.63 12.87 14.16
18 16” RAA - SEA 12 2.28 3.47 3.82
19 18” LWA - SEA 15 2.22 4.39 4.83
12” SRA - Subsea Lateral Tie-
21 15 2.39 4.32 4.74
In (pipeline LWA-SEA)
22 8” SEA - LWA 28 14.20 15.40 16.90
8” Lateral Tie-in (pipeline SEA-
23 15 14.24 15.41 16.95
RAA) - RAA
6” Subsea Lateral Tie-In
24 15 14.24 15.41 16.95
(pipeline RAA-LWA) - SRA
6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline
25 15 14.24 15.41 16.95
SEA-RAA) - RAB
Note:
1) Operating life as of present year (2016).
2) Reduced MAOP = 1.1 x Maximum Operating Pressure

Currently, there is no available information on the reduced MAOP of the pipeline based on the
current operating pressure. As such, the reduced MAOP utilized for the assessment is assumed as
1.1 x Maximum Operating Pressure and this is based on assumption of a 10% increase in the
pressure alarm settings of the pipeline in place.

The Maximum Operating Pressure point was selected based on the maximum value of all data
points on the pressure profile. EnQuest has informed that any significant spike on the data should
not be considered as it was most probably due to noise during measurements. As such, pressure
data on pipelines which exhibited significant isolated spike is ignored and the next maximum value is
identified as the maximum operating pressure (Refer Appendix T for the revision on the Maximum
Operating Pressure Point).

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 42 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

3.7 Tool Performance Specifications

The assessment of the SWP takes into account the tool performance specifications as presented in
Table 3-6. The computed SWP shall be based on the actual defect sizing as per inspection plus the
tool accuracy based on the corrosion type (general wall loss, pitting etc.). The added tool accuracy
will provide conservatism in the SWP calculation.

Table 3-6 Inspection Tool Accuracy Data


Inspection Tool Accuracy
Confidence
Pipeline ILI General Axial Circumferential
Id. # Level Pitting/Pinhole Ref.
Description Year Wall Loss Grooving/Slotting Grooving/Slotting
(%)
D L W D L W D L W D L W
18” SEA - 2008 80 10 20 20 15 25 25 20 25 25 15 20 25 20
1
TAP 2014 80 10 15 15 10 10 12 15 10 12 10 10 12 19
18” SEB -
2 2006 80 15 15 15 15 10 12 15 10 12 15 10 12 21
SEA
18” SEE - 2010 90 10 15 10 10 15 5 10 15 10 15 15 10 23
5
SEA 2015 90 15 30 30 20 35 35 25 35 35 20 30 35 22
12” SEG - 2006 90 10 15 15 10 10 12 15 10 12 10 10 12 25
6
SEA 2013 90 15 30 30 20 35 35 25 35 35 20 30 35 24
10" SEA -
10 2006 NA 10 20 20 10 10 10 10 20 20 10 20 20 26
SEB
10” SEA - 2011 NA 10 15 15 10 10 12 15 10 12 10 10 12 97
11
SED 2015 NA 10 20 20 15 25 25 20 25 25 15 25 20 27
1996 NA - - - - - - - - - - - - 29
12 6” SEA - SEG
2012 80 15 15 15 19 12 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 28
13 6” SED - SEC 2012 80 10 15 15 10 10 12 15 10 12 10 10 12 30
1998 NA - - - - - - - - - - - - 32
14 8” SEB - SEE
2011 80 10 15 15 10 10 12 10 10 12 10 10 12 31
15 6” SED - SEF 2012 NA 20 15 15 22 12 15 30 15 15 22 15 15 33
24” SEA - 2004 90 10 15 10 10 15 5 10 15 10 15 15 10 35
17
ANGSI 2012 80 10 15 15 10 12 10 15 12 10 15 12 10 34
16” RAA -
18 2008 80 10 15 15 10 10 12 15 10 12 10 10 12 36
SEA
18” LWA -
19 2012&2015 NA 10 20 20 15 25 25 20 25 25 15 20 25 37,38
SEA
22 8” SEA - LWA 2011 NA 10 15 15 10 10 12 15 10 12 10 10 12 39
Note: D = Depth (%WT), W = Width (mm), L = Length (mm), NA = Information Not Available

3.8 Inspection and Survey Data

For the assessment, the latest inspection/survey data was used as follows:

a) In-line inspection data was based on pipeline internal inspection report [Ref. 20 to 39].

b) Latest span data was based on the Subsea Explore ROV underwater pipeline survey [Ref. 1
to 16] and Pageo SSS survey report [Ref. 17&18].

c) Historical span data reported by EMEPMI [Ref. 92 to 95].

d) Cathodic protection was based on the CP survey report [Ref. 75 to 90].

e) Pipeline and riser condition were based on the Subsea Explore ROV underwater pipeline
survey report [Ref. 1 to 16].

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 43 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

3.9 Environmental Data

The wave and current data used in the Level 1 span assessment are presented in Table 3-7 [Ref.
53].

Table 3-7 Wave and Current Data


Raya Platform Seligi Platform
Pipeline
1 Yr Return 100 Yr Return 1 Yr Return 100 Yr Return
Orientation
Vbot Hs Tp Vbot Hs Tp Vbot Hs Tp Vbot Hs Tp
(deg) (m/s) (m) (s) (m/s) (m) (s) (m/s) (m) (s) (m/s) (m) (s)

0 0.359 1.7 6.4 0.407 2.9 7.8 0.268 1.7 6.3 0.320 2.8 7.8

15 0.351 1.3 7.7 0.428 4.2 13.3 0.310 1.3 7.9 0.372 3.9 14.1

30 0.389 1.3 7.7 0.455 4.2 13.3 0.331 1.3 7.9 0.393 3.9 14.1

45 0.452 1.3 7.7 0.521 4.2 13.3 0.386 1.3 7.9 0.453 3.9 14.1

60 0.513 1.3 7.7 0.584 4.2 13.3 0.463 1.3 7.9 0.522 3.9 14.1
75 0.554 1.3 7.7 0.625 4.2 13.3 0.520 1.3 7.9 0.563 3.9 14.1

90 0.598 1.3 7.7 0.641 4.2 13.3 0.572 1.3 7.9 0.625 3.9 14.1

105 0.646 1.3 7.7 0.697 4.2 13.3 0.544 1.3 7.9 0.679 3.9 14.1

120 0.659 3.8 10.6 0.715 5.2 11.5 0.616 3.8 10.7 0.677 5.2 11.7

135 0.644 3.8 10.6 0.701 5.2 11.5 0.563 3.8 10.7 0.624 5.2 11.7

150 0.582 3.8 10.6 0.636 5.2 11.5 0.577 3.8 10.7 0.538 5.2 11.7

165 0.479 1.7 6.4 0.538 2.9 7.8 0.356 1.7 6.3 0.422 2.8 7.8

180 0.358 1.7 6.4 0.407 2.9 7.8 0.268 1.7 6.3 0.320 2.8 7.8
Notes:
1) All data is extracted from DIM 1-1 [Ref. 53]
2) Vbot : Current speed 1m above seabed
3) Hs : Significant wave height
4) Tp : Peak period

3.10 Soil Data

Soil data used in the Level 1 span assessment are presented in Table 3-8.

Table 3-8 Soil Properties


Parameter Value Ref.
Soil Type Very Soft CLAY [Ref. 91]
0.005 (non-concrete coated pipe) /
Structural Damping Ratio [Ref. 44]
0.01 (concrete coated pipe)

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 44 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

4.0 Methodology
4.1 Free Span Assessment

4.1.1 General

The free span assessments in this report are carried out for Level 1 assessment only. This is the first
assessment level whereby the existing spans are checked against the allowable span lengths
derived from analytical equations for both the static and dynamic loading conditions. This level acts
as a screening/filtering of all the existing spans, thereby setting a prerequisite for those spans
requiring closer scrutiny under a Level 2 assessment. The screening methodology follows guidelines
from DNV-RP-F105 [Ref. 44].

4.1.2 Level 1 - Screening Analysis

Allowable free spans analysis has been performed using WGK’s validated in-house spreadsheet,
which follows the methodology defined in DNV-RP-F105 (February 2006) [Ref. 44]. The acceptance
of pipeline free spanning defined in this report is based on the avoidance of vortex induced vibration
(VIV) criterion. The analysis assumes a surface laid pipeline to maximise the effects of the cross flow
& in line currents. Allowable free spans length are based on operating condition using the current
operational data which is provided by EnQuest.

4.1.3 Free Spans Ranking

Due to large number of spans as identified during inspection, a traffic light screening of the spans
was implemented. The screenings of the spans are based on four levels of criticality (low, medium,
significant, high). The criticality is based on percentage (%) in excess of allowable spans. The levels
of criticality and the corresponding recommendations are based on the following methodology:-

Table 4-1 Criticality Ranking


Ranking % in excess of Allowable span Recommendations
Low <10% No Immediate Action Required
Medium >10% & <25% Recommended to L2 Free Span Assessment
Significant >25% & <40% To conduct L2 Free Span Assessment
High >40% To conduct L3 Free Span Assessment

4.2 Corrosion Assessment

Corrosion rates required to calculate remaining life of pipeline are predicted and summarized in
Section 5.3. Operating parameters are selected to simulate actual worst corrosion case from
production system records (OSIsoft PI). The Electronic Corrosion Engineer (ECE) Version 5.1.1 is
used for corrosion rate predicted based on De Waard and Williams model. These corrosion rates
represent current operating condition to determine Safe Working Pressure and Remaining Life as of
Year 2016. These corrosion rates shall be reviewed and revised if future change in operating
parameters is anticipated.

Improper corrosion protection procedure during planned/unplanned shutdown will not be considered
in corrosion rate prediction and FFP study.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 45 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

4.3 Corrosion Defect Assessment

4.3.1 General

For safe working pressure assessment, the code as preferred by Client is RSTRENG method as it is
able to utilize the Effective Area Method in determining the SWP. However, the ILI report [Ref. 20 to
39] only provide defect depths and dimensions (length x width) on a ‘per feature’ basis, and not a
detailed depth profile for each feature, hence the RSTRENG using “Simplified Method” (also known
as Modified ASME B31G) was used.

In order to provide a more realistic remaining life assessment given that most lines are currently
operating at pressures significantly lower than their original design pressure and rated MAOP, the
reduced MAOP for the purposes of this assessment is taken to be 1.10 X Maximum Current
Operating Pressure. This is based on an assumption of a 10% increase in the pressure alarm
settings of the pipeline system. The maximum current operating pressure is based on the maximum
recorded daily operating pressure provided by the client, and assumes that the pressure sensors are
correctly calibrated. In order for these reduced MAOPs to be used as a basis for the remaining life
assessment, EnQuest should ensure that these operating pressures cannot in practice be exceeded
during future operation, typically by setting safety valve and alarm set points to suit.

In order to ascertain whether pipelines require ‘formal’ derating, EnQuest has requested to check the
safe working pressure of the corrosion features based on the actual MAOP as per design. A
separate assessment is performed to check the SWP based on the actual MAOP and for pipelines
with the worst corrosion feature having ERF >1, the pipeline will require to be pressure derated.

4.3.2 Single Isolated Defect Under Internal Pressure

The assessment for single corrosion defect is conducted based on approach as per RSTRENG
using Simplified Method [Ref. 42], which provides guideline to determine the remaining strength of
corroded pipe for single isolated defect. For steel pipelines operating at or above 40% of the
specified minimum yield strength (SMYS), the code prescribes that the remaining strength of
corroded pipe may be determined by the following:

1. Determine the depth of corrosion, d. If d is less than 10% of nominal WT, no reduction in MAOP
need be considered. The code says that if d is greater than 80% of the nominal wall thickness,
consideration should be given to removing the affected segment from service.

2. Remaining strength of the pipe based on RSTRENG using the Simplified Method [Ref. 42] is
calculated as follows:

 d 
 1  0.85 
 68.9   t 
P '  P 1  
 SMYS    d  1 
1   0.85 t  M 2 
   

L2 Total
For  50,
Dt

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 46 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

1/ 2
 L2 Total L4 Total 
M 2  1  0.6275  0.003375 2 2 
 Dt D t 

L2 Total
For  50,
Dt

L2 Total
M 2  0.032  3.3
Dt
Where,

P’ = the safe maximum pressure for the corroded area.

P = the greater of either the design pressure or the established MAOP.

SMYS = specified minimum yield strength

D = pipe outer diameter

d = depth of metal loss

t = pipe wall thickness

Ltotal = length of metal loss

M2 = Folias Factor

3. If the established MAOP is equal to or less than P’, the corroded region may remain in service at
the MAOP if protected from further corrosion. If it is greater than P’, the MAOP should be
reduced so that P’ is not exceeded, or the corroded region should be repaired.

The corrosion features will require repair/pressure derating if the SWP is lower than the MAOP (or
Estimated Repair Factor (ERF)>1), or the feature depth exceeds 80% as per ASME B31G (Section
1.2 in the document) [Ref. 46]. Calculation of SWP is based on the SMYS of the pipe material and
the nominal wall thickness (WT) of the pipeline.
𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑀𝐴𝑂𝑃
The ERF is defined as follows: 𝐸𝑅𝐹 =
𝑆𝑎𝑓𝑒 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒

The pipeline is deemed fit for service as long as the ERF is less than unity. The smaller the ERF
value, the longer will be the remaining life of the pipeline.

4.3.3 Interacting Defects Under Internal Pressure

The assessment for interacting defect based on approach as per DNV-RP-F101 Part B [Ref. 43].
Interactions between closely spaced defects within a colony are treated successively by evaluating
the equivalent combined effective defect depths and lengths. For an N number of defects within a
colony, there will be an influence matrix of size N x N denoted by Njk, where j and k are defect index
from 1 to N. The safe working pressure, corresponding to each influence matrix, is calculated and
the minimum value governs the design.

The criteria used to determine the interactions are:

 Axial distance: 𝐿 < 2.0√𝐷𝑡

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 47 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

𝑡
 Radial distance: 𝑅 < 360√
𝐷

Defects are considered non-interacting if their axial separation is greater than L or if the radial
circumferential separation is greater than R.

In the analysis, the pipe length is divided into longitudinal section of equal lengths. Within each
section, it is further divided into radial circumferential segments denoted by R above. Defects that fall
within each of the axial and radial sections are treated as interacting and the influence matrix
evaluated. The safe working pressure of each section is then evaluated and repeated successively
for all sections.

4.3.4 Remaining Life Estimation

In the FFP assessment, the remaining life is defined as the estimated duration until the pipeline
section with the worst corrosion feature requires repair or has safe working pressure below the
intended MAOP. For the remaining life estimation of the pipeline, consideration of anticipated
pipeline corrosion rates will be required. The remaining life of the pipeline will be determined based
on the calculated current operating conditions corrosion rate (mm/year) with the assumption that the
operating conditions will remain constant. The same corrosion rate is utilized for both defect depth
and length. In order to achieve the estimated remaining life, corrosion control measures which is
consistent or better than the previous corrosion control measures, needs to be maintained.

Calculation of remaining life shall be based on the following conditions:

a) Required duration until the total wall loss of the pipeline is 80%WT, or

b) Required duration until the ERF >1.

For pipelines with the calculated ERF greater than 1.0 at the time of pigging, or within the next 2
years, recommendation for pipeline derating shall be implemented. The de-rated pressure shall be
the calculated MAOP/1.10. Revised corrosion rates shall be applied to determine the remaining life
of the pipeline after derating.

4.3.5 Leak and Rupture Failure

For defects with reported depth exceeding the 80%WT (inclusive of tool tolerance), the pipeline is
deemed not fit-for-purpose. Additional assessment is carried out to check if the defects can be
operated beyond 80%WT. The potential failure mode of the defect shall be identified whether it is
leak or rupture. Leak is defined as the failure mode when the through-wall defect resulting from the
failure of a part-wall defect has no increase in the length of the defect, and is considered stable.
Rupture by definition is a through wall-defect resulting from the failure of a part-wall defects which is
unstable (there is an increase in the length of the defect).

If the pipeline is operating at hoop stress less than 30% of the SMYS, the 30% SMYS rule as per the
Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual (PDAM) [Ref. 51] states that the pipeline is very unlikely to fail
via rupture; instead the pipeline will most likely fail via leak. For a given defect length, a part-wall
defect is predicted to fail as a leak if the failure stress of the part-wall defect is lower than the failure
stress for through-wall defect. Else, the part wall is predicted to fail via rupture. In addition, the critical
rupture length based on the operating pressure can be estimated. Section 35 in the PDAM provides
guideline to classify the failure mode of the defect whether it is leak or rupture and the methodology

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 48 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

was developed based on the NG-18 equations [Ref. 51]. The failure pressure of through-wall defect
is given by the following equation,

Where;

Pf = Failure Pressure at through-wall loss


σθ = Failure Stress
t = wall thickness
D = Outer diameter

The critical rupture length can be calculated based on the semi-empirical toughness dependent
failure criterion for through-wall defect as follows,

Where:

CV = upper shelf Charpy V-notch impact energy


A = shear fracture area of a Charpy specimen corresponding to upper shelf impact
energy (53.55 mm2 for a 2/3 thickness Charpy specimen and 80.0 mm2 for a full size
Charpy specimen)
E = Elastic modulus
8c = 4 x defect length (defect length is defined as 2c)
M = Folias factor
σθ = Failure Stress
σ = Flow Stress

For defects exceeding the 80%WT, if the failure mode is classified as leak then the remaining life of
the pipeline will be estimated until the leak point (100%WT). For defect with rupture as the failure
mode, the remaining life shall not be computed as the pipeline is deemed not fit-for-purpose. Hence,
rectification/further investigation is required to ascertain the criticality of the defect.

4.3.6 Safety Factor for Pipeline and Riser

Safety factor for pipeline and riser shall be based on ASME B31.4 [Ref. 47] and ASME B31.8 [Ref.
48], as presented in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2 Safety Factor for SWP Assessment


Item Safety Factor
Riser (Gas) 0.50
Riser (FWS) 0.60
Pipeline 0.72

4.3.7 FFP Software

The SWP assessment was performed using IC-FINESSE FFP software [Ref. 41] utilizing inspection
data from inspection tools and corrosion management data. Data from inspection tools (magnetic
flux leakage intelligent pigs) are imported into this module and assessed to determine fitness for

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 49 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

service and repairs needed for the pipeline in question. Details on the IC-FINESSE software features
are presented in Appendix R.

4.4 Assumptions

4.4.1 Free Span Assessment

The following are the assumptions used in the Level 1 span assessment.

1. Free spans are single isolated spans without the presence of adjacent spans.

2. Ratio of L/D < 140.

3. Relatively flat seabed with span shoulders at same elevation level.

4. Span shoulders support are same material as surrounding seabed.

5. Equal probability of occurrence of waves & currents in all directions – omni-directional waves &
currents

6. Fully constrained in the axial/longitudinal direction.

7. Pinned-fixed end boundary conditions.

8. Data: current operational data provided (agreed with EnQuest):

a. Temperature (adopted from ILI report provided by EnQuest);

i. 14 pipelines (with ILI report), so adopted operating temperature from ILI report

ii. 3 CRA pipelines (no ILI report with operating temperature), so adopted the
operating temperature from the nearest platform with ILI report

iii. 7 pipelines (no ILI report with operating temperature), so adopted the operating
temperature from the main line with ILI report

b. Pressure; adopted the max & min pressure along the pipeline from daily pressure profile
provided by EnQuest for the analysis

c. Content density; adopted the max density for pipelines from the laboratory test
measured density provided by EnQuest

9. Environmental data has been referred to the ExxonMobil Design Instruction Manual, DIM 1-1,
January 2003.

10. Type of soil at PM-8 & Seligi Fields area is taken as very soft clay.

11. Seabed profile has been taken from inspection survey report provided by EnQuest.

12. No corrosion allowance considered in the analysis.

4.4.2 Corrosion Rate Assessment

The followings are the assumptions used in the corrosion rate assessment.

1. Operating pressures are selected to simulate actual worst corrosion case from production
system records (OSIsoft PI) [Ref. 105]. Degraded data i.e. sudden pressure spike, drastic
pressure drop and negative value will not be considered. High operating pressure in the similar

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 50 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

range with more than 10 operation days is selected for ECE5.1.1 simulation.

2. Pipeline inlet temperatures are adopted from Inspection Reports [Ref.19 to 39]. Pipeline outlet
temperatures are not available or unrealistic based on Inspection Reports, a standardized
temperature of 40°C (max. ambient temperature) is assumed in modelling to simulate maximum
water drop put at outlet.

3. Process operating parameters would be controlled to prevent water condensation by means of


controlling the water dew point along the pipelines.

4. Glycol Dehydration Unit at Seligi A is expected to work at its maximum efficiency throughout a
year. Only 24 days/year of wet operation is anticipated i.e. Glycol Contactor operates at reduced
efficiency or temporarily breakdown. During process upset, a total of 9lb/MMscfd [Ref. 104]
(Appendix O) of condensed water may enter the gas pipelines

5. Continuous corrosion inhibitor is available for all FWS and crude pipeline at 93% availability (for
24 days per year during planned/unplanned shutdown) and 99% efficiency.

6. Corrosion due to H2S (Sour Corrosion) is negligible. H2S is not measured in Fluid Analysis
reports (Appendix P). COMPANY advised as nil.

7. All gas pipelines contain similar amount of CO2 content i.e. 5.445 mole% (Appendix P) due to
similar gaslift source from Glycol Contactor at Seligi A.

8. A default CO2 concentration of max. 6 mole% will be considered for pipeline without Fluid
Analysis reports i.e. pipeline Id No. 21.

9. Hot tapped pipelines without production data adopt similar parameters with their connected
pipelines. For an example, pipeline Id No. 8 adopts similar operating temperature as per pipeline
Id No. 2 (main pipeline for hot tap pipeline Id No. 8) due to absence of IP report to extract
operating temperature.

4.4.3 FFP Assessment

The following are the assumptions used in the FFP assessment for Pipelines with ILI data.

1. The reduced MAOP is assumed as 1.10 x Maximum Current Operating Pressure and this is
based on assumption of a 10% increase in the pressure alarm settings of the pipeline in place.
The maximum operating pressure is taken from the maximum recorded daily operating pressure
profile data from 8 January 2014 to 7 January 2016 [Ref. 40], and assumes that the pressure
sensors are correctly calibrated.

2. The remaining life is defined as the estimated duration until the pipeline section with the worst
defect requires repair or has pressure below the safe working pressure of the defect. For
remaining life estimation, the same corrosion rates are used for defect depths and lengths.

3. Remaining life of the pipeline is based on the assumption that the operating conditions will
remain constant throughout the period of service.

4. For RSTRENG, using Simplified method is a modification the ASME B31G approaches, the
following assumptions as per stated on ASME B31G [Ref. 46] holds:

a. The method is applicable to corrosion on weldable pipelines steels categorized as


carbon steels or high strength low alloy steels.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 51 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

b. The method applies only to defects on the body on line pipe which have relatively
smooth contours and low stress concentration.

c. This method is not applicable to evaluating remaining strength of corroded girth or


longitudinal welds or related heat affected zones, defects caused by mechanical
damage such as gouges and grooves, and defects introduced during pipe manufacture
such as seams, laps, rolled ends, scabs or slivers.

d. This method is not applicable to predict leaks or rupture failures. Crack-like defects are
not covered in the method.

5. The corroded areas assumption of 85% utilized in RSTRENG using Simplified method is slightly
more conservative than the parabolic assumption as per ASME B31G which assumes the metal
loss area is only 67% of the area of a uniform-depth defect, but is more accurate for long shallow
corrosion.

The followings are the assumptions and limitations used in the FFP assessment for Pipelines without
ILI data.

1. Pipelines Id. No. 3, 4 and 7 are CRA clad. As such, the remaining lives of these lines are not
computed as the lines will not be corroded in CO2 service. For these pipelines, only the
underwater inspection review (if available) is carried out as part of evaluating the FFP of the
lines

2. Pipelines Id. No. 9 and 20 are currently not in services. These lines are excluded from the
assessment.

3. For pipelines transporting dry gas (Pipelines Id. No. 16, 23, 24 and 25), the expected corrosion
rates based on ECE are insignificant (as presented in Table 5-23), as such remaining life of the
pipelines are deemed sufficient.

4. After the exclusions of the above mentioned pipelines, only Pipelines Id. No. 8 and 21 will be
assessed in terms of the remaining life as the corrosion rate based on ECE is significant (as
presented in Table 5-23) due to multiphase hydrocarbon associated with FWS.

5. As there is no data to determine the actual wall loss as of to date, a conservative approach is
taken by looking at the connecting lines of Pipelines Id. No. 8 and 21 which have ILI record. The
connecting lines are presented in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3 Connecting Pipeline


Id. # Pipeline Connecting Pipeline
8 10” SEH - Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline SEB-SEA) 18" SEB – SEA (Id. No. 2)
21 12” SRA - Subsea Lateral Tie-In (pipeline LWA-SEA) 18” LWA – SEA (Id. No. 19)

6. A conservative approach is taken by looking at the connecting lines of Pipelines Id. No. 8 and 21
which have ILI data and calculate the corrosion rate based on the worst defect depth as per
reported in the ILI report. The wall loss estimation is performed as follows:

a. Check the corrosion feature with the highest reported wall loss in the ILI.

b. As both connecting lines only have one ILI survey, the corrosion rate is conservatively
calculated by dividing the total wall loss with the duration from day 1 to the year of
inspection.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 52 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

c. The calculated corrosion rate is then used to calculate the estimated wall loss for the
pipeline (with no ILI) from day 1 to present year (2016).

7. The approach as in (e) is based on the assumption that the historical operating conditions for the
pipeline (with no ILI) and the connecting line were more or less similar. Currently, there is no
available information on the historical operating conditions of the pipeline.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 53 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

5.0 Results and Discussions


5.1 Free Span Assessment

5.1.1 General

This section presents the results of the free span assessments for Seligi & PM8 pipelines.

Pipelines identification number 9 and 20 are non-operating.

5.1.2 Results

The details of free span assessment for Seligi & PM8 pipelines is presented in Spans Length vs KP
graphical plots and are shown in Figure 5-1 to Figure 5-23. The graphical plots indicate the number
of reported spans with their corresponding mid span length KP locations and the number of spans
exceeding the allowable spans. Side scan survey reported spans are denoted by blue diamonds
while ROV reported spans are denoted by red rectangles. Any spans above the allowable operating
span (blue line) are reported as exceeding the allowable span length.

For selection of the allowable operating span data, three (3) allowable span data have been plotted
in the graphical plots as shown in Figure 5-1 to Figure 5-23 with three (3) different colours for each
allowable span data. The green line in the graphical plots indicates the existing allowable operating
spans from initial design report, while the yellow line indicates the calculated allowable operating
spans using the “design” value. The blue line represents the calculated allowable operating spans
using the “current operational” data as provided by EnQuest. The blue line has been selected to be
used as the allowable span for better representation of span based on current operational data.

Figure 5-1 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 1)

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 54 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Figure 5-2 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 2)

Figure 5-3 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 3)

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 55 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Figure 5-4 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 4)

Figure 5-5 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 5)

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 56 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Figure 5-6 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 6)

Figure 5-7 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 7)

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 57 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Figure 5-8 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 8)

Figure 5-9 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 10)

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 58 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Figure 5-10 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 11)

Figure 5-11 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 12)

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 59 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Figure 5-12 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 13)

Figure 5-13 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 14)

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 60 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Figure 5-14 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 15)

Figure 5-15 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 16)

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 61 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Figure 5-16 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 17)

Figure 5-17 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 18)

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 62 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Figure 5-18 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 19)

Figure 5-19 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 21)

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 63 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Figure 5-20 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 22)

Figure 5-21 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 23)

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 64 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Figure 5-22 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 24)

Figure 5-23 Free Spans Plots (Pipeline Id. No. 25)

Summary of pipeline reported spans in accordance to a traffic light screening system which ranks the
pipeline spans that exceeded their allowable based on four levels of criticality (low, medium,
significant, high) are shown in Table 5-1 to Table 5-16.The criticality is based on percentage (%) in
excess of allowable spans. Reference is a made to Section 7 for ranking basis.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 65 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

The pipeline identification number 22 has 269 identified free spans and the table summarizing all
spans is shown in Appendix Q.

Table 5-1 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #1


Actual
Max Allowable
Span Survey Length in Excess of % Greater Than Criticality
KP Span, m
Length, Method Allowable, m Allowable Ranking
(Operation)
m
6.508 30 34.41 ROV 4.41 14.7% Medium
7.902 30 32.29 ROV 2.29 7.6% Low
22.225 30 43.00 SSS 13.00 43.3% High
22.441 30 30.18 ROV 0.18 0.6% Low
34.285 29 30.25 ROV 1.25 4.3% Low
Note:
1) From KP21 to KP50 (approximate).
2) Survey using ROV method was performed by Subsea Explore and survey using SSS method was performed by Pageo.

Table 5-2 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #2


Actual
Max Allowable
Span Survey Length in Excess of % Greater Than Criticality
KP Span, m
Length, Method Allowable, m Allowable Ranking
(Operation)
m
0.060 31 45.05 ROV 14.05 45.3% High
0.401 31 40.02 ROV 9.02 29.1% Significant
0.614 31 42.91 ROV 11.91 38.4% Significant
0.800 31 36.20 ROV 5.20 16.8% Medium
Note:
1) Survey using ROV method was performed by Subsea Explore.

Table 5-3 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #5


Actual
Max Allowable
Span Survey Length in Excess of % Greater Than Criticality
KP Span, m
Length, Method Allowable, m Allowable Ranking
(Operation)
m
0.245 38 41.66 ROV 3.66 9.6% Low
0.535 39 41.52 ROV 2.52 6.5% Low
Note:
1) Survey using ROV method was performed by Subsea Explore.

Table 5-4 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #8


Actual
Max Allowable
Span Survey Length in Excess of % Greater Than Criticality
KP Span, m
Length, Method Allowable, m Allowable Ranking
(Operation)
m
0.014 22 27.90 ROV 5.90 26.8% Significant
0.065 22 24.80 ROV 2.80 12.7% Medium
0.198 22 23.30 ROV 1.30 5.9% Low
0.379 22 23.20 ROV 1.20 5.5% Low
0.932 21 21.70 ROV 0.70 3.3% Low
0.967 21 23.00 SSS 2.00 9.5% Low
1.117 22 22.50 ROV 0.50 2.3% Low
1.205 22 24.40 ROV 2.40 10.9% Medium
1.285 22 23.10 ROV 1.10 5.0% Low
Note:
1) Survey using ROV method was performed by Subsea Explore and survey using SSS method was performed by Pageo.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 66 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 5-5 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #10
Max Actual
Allowable Span Survey Length in Excess of % Greater Than Criticality
KP
Span, m Length, Method Allowable, m allowable Ranking
(Operation) m
0.023 27 46.00 ROV 19.00 70.4% High
1.574 25 28.00 ROV 3.00 12.0% Medium
1.780 25 32.00 ROV 7.00 28.0% Significant
3.229 20 24.00 ROV 4.00 20.0% Medium
3.421 20 28.00 ROV 8.00 40.0% Significant
3.452 20 22.00 ROV 2.00 10.0% Low
3.523 20 33.00 ROV 13.00 65.0% High
3.669 20 28.00 ROV 8.00 40.0% Significant
3.703 20 27.00 ROV 7.00 35.0% Significant
3.800 20 24.00 ROV 4.00 20.0% Medium
3.873 20 23.00 ROV 3.00 15.0% Medium
3.898 20 25.00 ROV 5.00 25.0% Medium
Note:
1) Survey using ROV method was performed by Subsea Explore.

Table 5-6 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #11
Actual
Max Allowable
Span Survey Length in Excess of % Greater Than Criticality
KP Span, m
Length, Method Allowable, m Allowable Ranking
(Operation)
m
0.131 19 29.00 ROV 10.00 52.6% High
0.183 19 24.00 ROV 5.00 26.3% Significant
0.361 19 27.00 ROV 8.00 42.1% High
0.439 19 28.00 ROV 9.00 47.4% High
0.472 19 25.00 ROV 6.00 31.6% Significant
0.687 18 30.00 ROV 12.00 66.7% High
0.922 18 23.00 ROV 5.00 27.8% Significant
1.071 18 21.00 SSS 3.00 16.7% Medium
1.226 18 31.00 ROV 13.00 72.2% High
1.620 18 23.00 ROV 5.00 27.8% Significant
1.654 18 25.00 ROV 7.00 38.9% Significant
1.715 18 20.00 ROV 2.00 11.1% Medium
1.750 18 23.00 ROV 5.00 27.8% Significant
1.827 18 25.00 ROV 7.00 38.9% Significant
2.069 18 22.00 ROV 4.00 22.2% Medium
2.350 18 24.00 ROV 6.00 33.3% Significant
2.449 18 22.00 ROV 4.00 22.2% Medium
2.509 18 20.00 ROV 2.00 11.1% Medium
2.814 18 20.00 ROV 2.00 11.1% Medium
3.030 17 27.00 ROV 10.00 58.8% High
3.134 17 33.00 ROV 16.00 94.1% High
3.204 17 22.00 ROV 5.00 29.4% Significant
3.366 17 30.00 ROV 13.00 76.5% High
3.402 17 19.00 ROV 2.00 11.8% Medium
Note:
1) Survey using ROV method was performed by Subsea Explore and survey using SSS method was performed by Pageo.

Table 5-7 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #12
Actual
Max Allowable
Span Survey Length in Excess of % Greater Than Criticality
KP Span, m
Length, Method Allowable, m Allowable Ranking
(Operation)
m
1.457 14 15.00 SSS 1.00 7.1% Low
1.670 14 18.00 SSS 4.00 28.6% Significant
3.200 15 16.00 SSS 1.00 6.7% Low

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 67 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Actual
Max Allowable
Span Survey Length in Excess of % Greater Than Criticality
KP Span, m
Length, Method Allowable, m Allowable Ranking
(Operation)
m
3.263 15 16.00 SSS 1.00 6.7% Low
Note:
1) Survey using SSS method was performed by Pageo.

Table 5-8 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #13
Actual
Max Allowable
Span Survey Length in Excess of % Greater Than Criticality
KP Span, m
Length, Method Allowable, m Allowable Ranking
(Operation)
m
0.432 17 22.67 ROV 5.67 33.4% Significant
0.838 18 19.71 ROV 1.71 9.5% Low
1.453 19 22.23 ROV 3.23 17.0% Medium
1.607 19 20.91 ROV 1.91 10.1% Medium
1.860 19 20.00 SSS 1.00 5.3% Low
1.900 19 32.71 ROV 13.71 72.2% High
1.990 20 22.00 SSS 2.00 10.0% Low
3.007 19 19.11 ROV 0.11 0.6% Low
3.125 19 19.22 ROV 0.22 1.2% Low
Note:
1) Survey using ROV method was performed by Subsea Explore and survey using SSS method was performed by Pageo.

Table 5-9 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #14
Actual
Max Allowable
Span Survey Length in Excess of % Greater Than Criticality
KP Span, m
Length, Method Allowable, m Allowable Ranking
(Operation)
m
0.281 18 24.00 SSS 6.00 33.3% Significant
0.391 18 27.00 SSS 9.00 50.0% High
1.199 18 19.00 SSS 1.00 5.6% Low
1.798 18 19.00 SSS 1.00 5.6% Low
Note:
1) Survey using SSS method was performed by Pageo.

Table 5-10 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #15
Actual
Max Allowable
Span Survey Length in Excess of % Greater Than Criticality
KP Span, m
Length, Method Allowable, m Allowable Ranking
(Operation)
m
2.721 17 23.00 SSS 6.00 35.3% Significant
Note:
1) Survey using SSS method was performed by Pageo.

Table 5-11 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #16
Actual
Max Allowable
Span Survey Length in Excess of % Greater Than Criticality
KP Span, m
Length, Method Allowable, m Allowable Ranking
(Operation)
m
0.159 13 21.00 SSS 8.00 61.5% High
0.369 13 24.00 SSS 11.00 84.6% High
0.392 13 13.10 ROV 0.10 0.8% Low
0.407 13 14.94 ROV 1.94 14.9% Medium
0.833 13 19.40 ROV 6.40 49.2% High
0.948 13 14.03 ROV 1.03 7.9% Low
1.209 14 18.00 SSS 4.00 28.6% Significant
1.453 13 18.97 ROV 5.97 45.9% High

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 68 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Actual
Max Allowable
Span Survey Length in Excess of % Greater Than Criticality
KP Span, m
Length, Method Allowable, m Allowable Ranking
(Operation)
m
1.486 13 13.92 ROV 0.92 7.1% Low
1.789 13 19.41 ROV 6.41 49.3% High
Note:
1) Survey using ROV method was performed by Subsea Explore and survey using SSS method was performed by Pageo.

Table 5-12 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #17
Actual
Max Allowable
Span Survey Length in Excess % Greater Than Criticality
KP Span, m
Length, Method of Allowable, m Allowable Ranking
(Operation)
m
20.000 44 61.00 SSS 17.00 38.6% Significant
21.621 44 46.00 SSS 2.00 4.5% Low
25.375 44 59.00 SSS 15.00 34.1% Significant
27.870 44 70.00 SSS 26.00 59.1% High
Note:
1) Survey using SSS method was performed by Pageo.

Table 5-13 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #18
Actual
Max Allowable
Span Survey Length in Excess % Greater Than Criticality
KP Span, m
Length, Method of Allowable, m Allowable Ranking
(Operation)
m
13.173 25 25.05 ROV 0.05 0.2% Low
14.367 25 25.48 ROV 0.48 1.9% Low
15.318 26 32.00 SSS 6.00 23.1% Medium
15.648 26 26.86 ROV 0.86 3.3% Low
17.966 26 26.10 ROV 0.10 0.4% Low
20.807 27 53.00 SSS 26.00 96.3% High
21.122 27 27.87 ROV 0.87 3.2% Low
21.154 27 32.86 ROV 5.86 21.7% Medium
22.220 28 36.00 SSS 8.00 28.6% Significant
22.558 28 34.87 ROV 6.87 24.5% Medium
28.862 32 46.00 SSS 14.00 43.8% High
28.969 32 50.00 SSS 18.00 56.3% High
29.224 32 35.09 ROV 3.09 9.7% Low
30.342 32 34.00 SSS 2.00 6.3% Low
Note:
1) Survey using ROV method was performed by Subsea Explore and survey using SSS method was performed by Pageo.

Table 5-14 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #19
Actual
Max Allowable
Span Survey Length in Excess % Greater Than Criticality
KP Span, m
Length, Method of Allowable, m Allowable Ranking
(Operation)
m
0.015 30 31.00 ROV 1.00 3.3% Low
0.884 30 34.00 ROV 4.00 13.3% Medium
5.656 26 32.00 ROV 6.00 23.1% Medium
6.561 26 28.00 ROV 2.00 7.7% Low
7.972 26 31.00 ROV 5.00 19.2% Medium
9.682 26 35.00 ROV 9.00 34.6% Significant
13.609 26 34.00 ROV 8.00 30.8% Significant
15.064 27 32.00 SSS 5.00 18.5% Medium
15.250 27 28.00 ROV 1.00 3.7% Low
15.455 27 28.00 ROV 1.00 3.7% Low
15.751 27 30.00 ROV 3.00 11.1% Medium
17.300 27 31.00 ROV 4.00 14.8% Medium

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 69 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Actual
Max Allowable
Span Survey Length in Excess % Greater Than Criticality
KP Span, m
Length, Method of Allowable, m Allowable Ranking
(Operation)
m
20.259 27 28.00 SSS 1.00 3.7% Low
21.637 27 37.00 ROV 10.00 37.0% Significant
23.148 27 30.00 SSS 3.00 11.1% Medium
23.856 27 29.00 ROV 2.00 7.4% Low
24.370 27 29.00 SSS 2.00 7.4% Low
25.728 27 32.00 ROV 5.00 18.5% Medium
25.916 27 28.00 SSS 1.00 3.7% Low
26.199 27 37.00 SSS 10.00 37.0% Significant
27.282 27 33.00 ROV 6.00 22.2% Medium
28.291 28 29.00 SSS 1.00 3.6% Low
29.327 28 41.00 ROV 13.00 46.4% High
30.613 28 30.00 ROV 2.00 7.1% Low
30.698 28 31.00 ROV 3.00 10.7% Medium
30.906 28 30.00 ROV 2.00 7.1% Low
31.063 28 31.00 ROV 3.00 10.7% Medium
31.420 28 30.00 ROV 2.00 7.1% Low
35.111 28 34.00 ROV 6.00 21.4% Medium
36.290 28 33.00 ROV 5.00 17.9% Medium
40.967 28 30.00 ROV 2.00 7.1% Low
41.378 28 39.00 ROV 11.00 39.3% Significant
42.417 28 33.00 ROV 5.00 17.9% Medium
43.525 29 33.00 SSS 4.00 13.8% Medium
Note:
1) Survey using ROV method was performed by Subsea Explore and survey using SSS method was performed by Pageo.

Table 5-15 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #21
Actual
Max Allowable
Span Survey Length in Excess % Greater Than Criticality
KP Span, m
Length, Method of Allowable, m Allowable Ranking
(Operation)
m
2.721 22 23.60 ROV 1.60 7.3% Low
3.072 22 23.69 ROV 1.69 7.7% Low
3.208 22 24.44 ROV 2.44 11.1% Medium
4.119 22 22.29 ROV 0.29 1.3% Low
4.822 22 22.33 ROV 0.33 1.5% Low
5.954 22 28.00 SSS 6.00 27.3% Significant
6.413 23 28.30 ROV 5.30 23.0% Medium
6.579 23 24.00 SSS 1.00 4.3% Low
7.103 23 28.00 SSS 5.00 21.7% Medium
7.873 23 27.86 ROV 4.86 21.1% Medium
8.972 23 24.00 SSS 1.00 4.3% Low
9.477 23 27.00 SSS 4.00 17.4% Medium
10.133 23 26.00 SSS 3.00 13.0% Medium
10.906 23 26.19 ROV 3.19 13.9% Medium
10.961 23 26.00 SSS 3.00 13.0% Medium
11.895 23 26.00 SSS 3.00 13.0% Medium
12.320 24 24.46 ROV 0.46 1.9% Low
12.536 24 25.15 ROV 1.15 4.8% Low
Note:
1) Survey using ROV method was performed by Subsea Explore and survey using SSS method was performed by Pageo.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 70 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 5-16 Level 1 Free Span Assessment Results for Pipeline Id #25
Actual
Max Allowable
Span Survey Length in Excess % Greater Than Criticality
KP Span, m
Length, Method of Allowable, m Allowable Ranking
(Operation)
m
0.384 17 20.37 ROV 3.37 19.8% Medium
0.497 16 18.79 ROV 2.79 17.4% Medium
Note:
1) Survey using ROV method was performed by Subsea Explore.

5.1.3 Comparison between 2015 free spans and historical free spans by EMEPMI

This section presents the findings of comparison between latest free spans (2015) and historical free
spans (by EMEPMI) for Seligi & PM8 pipelines. Due to unavailability of the EMEPMI historical free
spans for each of the pipelines, only four (4) pipelines (Pipeline Id. No. 1,2,17 & 19) with historical
data have been assessed.

5.1.3.1 Pipeline Id. No. 1: 18” Crude SEA – TAP

Based on the EMEPMI 2006 survey report, a total of 545 free spans were identified. For comparison
purpose, only free spans with length greater than 20m were selected (a total of 34 spans) to
compare with the 2015 inspections. There were 23 free spans found in the EMEPMI 2006 survey
report provided [Ref. 92], which matches with the latest free span survey of 2015, and are
summarized in Table 5-17. Free span with length exceeding the allowable is highlighted in red. The
graphs for the free spans reported in the 2015 survey; plus the matched spans location from the
EMEPMI 2006 report [Ref. 92] are shown in the Appendix K, which are highlighted in red boxes.

Table 5-17 Matching Free Span for Pipeline Id No. 1


EMEPMI-2006 SUBSEA-2015 PAGEO-2015
Max Allowable
Span Span
No. Span, m Span
KP KP Length KP Length
(Operation) Length (m)
(m) (m)
1 30 7.901 24 7.902 32 - -
2 31 18.531 22 18.533 28 - -
3 30 21.110 25 21.113 19 - -
4 29 27.487 21 27.492 19 - -
5 29 29.910 22 29.912 29 - -
6 29 31.384 20 31.390 19 - -
7 29 32.032 22 32.035 18 - -
8 29 36.197 21 36.199 6 - -
9 29 37.248 21 37.255 6 - -
10 29 37.728 23 37.732 18 - -
11 29 37.942 25 37.943 13 - -
12 29 38.650 21 38.659 3 - -
13 29 38.742 22 38.741 20 - -
14 29 38.932 27 38.937 8 - -
15 29 40.099 25 40.104 5 - -
16 29 41.008 25 41.009 13 - -
17 29 42.001 26 42.008 5 - -
18 29 42.827 35 42.818 16 - -
19 29 42.875 24 42.880 22 - -
20 29 43.602 23 43.607 20 - -
21 29 43.928 21 43.930 18 - -
22 29 44.840 22 44.843 21 - -
23 29 44.913 23 44.913 26 - -

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 71 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

The span that exceeds the allowable (Span at KP7.902 based on Subsea Explore 2015 inspection)
is illustrated in Figure 5-24.

Figure 5-24 Spans Exceeding Allowable (Matching Spans Id. 1)

5.1.3.2 Pipeline Id. No. 2: 18" FWS SEB – SEA

Based on the EMEPMI 2006 survey report, a total of 41 free spans were identified. For comparison
purpose, only free spans with length greater than 20m were selected (a total of 11 spans) to
compare with the 2015 inspections. There were 7 free spans found in the EMEPMI 2003 survey
report provided [Ref. 93], which matches with the latest free span survey of 2015, and are
summarized in Table 5-18. Free span with length exceeding the allowable is highlighted in red. The
graphs for the free spans reported in the 2015 survey; plus the matched spans location from the
EMEPMI 2003 report [Ref. 93] are shown in the Appendix K, which are highlighted in red boxes.

Table 5-18 Matching Free Span for Pipeline Id No. 2


EMEPMI-2003 SUBSEA-2015 PAGEO-2015
Max Allowable
Span Span
No. Span, m Span
KP KP Length KP Length
(Operation) Length (m)
(m) (m)
1 28 0.403 24 0.401 40 - -
2 28 0.476 23 0.479 18 - -
3 29 0.514 25 - - 0.516 24
4 29 0.558 26 0.555 25 - -
5 29 0.760 24 0.748 24 - -
6 29 1.047 23 1.058 11 - -
7 38 3.311 29 3.303 11 - -

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 72 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

The span that exceeds the allowable (Span at KP0.401 based on Subsea Explore 2015 inspection)
is illustrated in Figure 5-25.

Figure 5-25 Spans Exceeding Allowable (Matching Spans Id. 2)

5.1.3.3 Pipeline Id. No. 17: 24” Gas SEA – ANGSI

Based on the EMEPMI 2006 survey report, a total of 634 free spans were identified. For comparison
purpose, only free spans with length greater than 30m were selected (a total of 16 spans) to
compare with the 2015 inspections. No free spans found in the EMEPMI 2007 survey report provided
[Ref. 94], which matches with the latest free span survey of 2015. The graphs for the free spans
reported in the 2015 survey; plus the matched spans location from the EMEPMI 2007 report [Ref. 94]
are shown in the Appendix K, which are highlighted in red boxes.

5.1.3.4 Pipeline Id. No. 19: 18” FWS LWA – SEA

Based on the EMEPMI 2006 survey report, a total of 126 free spans were identified. For comparison
purpose, only free spans with length greater than 20m were selected (a total of 23 spans) to
compare with the 2015 inspections. There were 15 of free spans found in the EMEPMI 2003 survey
report provided [Ref. 95], which matches with the latest free span survey of 2015, and are
summarized in Table 5-19.

Free span with length exceeding the allowable is highlighted in red. The graphs for the free spans
reported in the 2015 survey; plus the matched spans location from the EMEPMI 2003 report [Ref. 95]
are shown in the Appendix K, which are highlighted in red boxes.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 73 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 5-19 Matching Free Span for Pipeline Id No. 19


EMEPMI-2003 SUBSEA-2015 PAGEO-2015
Max Allowable
Span Span
No. Span, m Span
KP KP Length KP Length
(Operation) Length (m)
(m) (m)
1 26 3.358 30 3.381 9 - -
2 26 5.518 23 5.510 13 - -
3 26 10.095 24 10.089 7 10.083 11
4 26 14.023 28 14.025 6 - -
5 27 18.663 23 18.657 10 - -
6 27 21.617 24 21.637 37 21.638 12
7 27 22.047 31 22.027 13 - -
8 27 22.743 25 22.725 26 - -
9 27 23.130 20 23.119 8 - -
10 27 24.266 23 24.271 9 - -
11 27 25.402 22 25.395 18 - -
12 27 25.656 22 25.666 7 - -
13 28 29.009 22 29.025 25 - -
14 28 31.473 23 31.493 19 - -
15 29 42.822 31 42.827 7 - -

Spans that exceed the allowable (as per Table 5-19) are as illustrated in Figure 5-26 to Figure 5-29

Figure 5-26 Spans Exceeding Allowable (Matching Spans Id. 19 – KP0 to KP4.75)

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 74 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Figure 5-27 Spans Exceeding Allowable (Matching Spans Id. 19 – KP9.5 to KP14.25)

Figure 5-28 Spans Exceeding Allowable (Matching Spans Id. 19 – KP19 to KP23.75)

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 75 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Figure 5-29 Spans Exceeding Allowable (Matching Spans Id. 19 – KP42.75 to KP47.5)

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 76 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

5.2 Corrosion Assessment

5.2.1 Full Well Stream (FWS) Pipelines – Pipeline Id. No. 2, 5, 6, 8, 18, 19 & 21

Since multiphase hydrocarbon is associated in FWS pipelines, high corrosion rates are possible.
CO2 was identified as the major corrosive species, CO2 content varied from 2 mole% to 6 mole% as
per MECAS Corrosion Impact Assessment report [Ref. 106] In the presence of water, CO2 forms a
weak acid (carbonic acid) which lower the pH of the system and promote most common forms of
corrosion include uniform corrosion and pitting. Corrosion rates for FWS pipelines predicted using
ECE5.1.1 are in the range of 0.07mm/year to 1.34mm/year as per Table 5-23. Details are tabulated
in Appendix N.

Other credible corrosion threats and corrosion barriers in placed as per current operating condition
are tabulated in Table 5-20.

Table 5-20 Corrosion Threats and Barriers for FWS Pipelines (as per Current Operating
Condition)
Corrosion Threat Corrosion Barrier Remark
Corrosion inhibitor 2 – 6 mole % CO2 [Ref.
CO2 Corrosion
MEC1170A [Ref. 109] 106]
80 – 1000ppm Acetic
Corrosion inhibitor
Organic Corrosion acid
MEC1170A [Ref. 109]
[Ref. 106]
At risk if only oxygen
ingression occurs.
Oxygen corrosion Corrosion allowance
Information on CA not
available.
SRB count 101 measured
Biocide MEC6112.NR
Microbial-Induced Corrosion on pipeline 5 & 6 [Ref.
[Ref. 109]
110]
Company has reported
negligible H2S. Partial
Internal

pressure of H2S shall be


<3.5mbar if pipelines
Sulphide Stress Cracking (SSC) None (Low risk)
material do not comply
with sour service
requirement as per
NACE MR0175
Negligible H2S. Non-high
Hydrogen Induced Cracking (HIC) None (Low risk)
strength steel.
Does not comply with
monthly requirement.
Pigging for Pipeline 2 & 8
has not been carried out
Under Deposit Corrosion Routine pigging
since July 2014. Pipeline
6, 18 & 21 were due on
June & Aug 2015 [Ref.
104]
Atmospheric Corrosion (above water) Coating/painting As per Company spec.
Coal Tar Enamel (CTE)
or 3 Layer Polypropylene
(3LPP) [Ref. 55, 58, 59,
External

61, 69, 70 & 71]


External coating +
Seawater Corrosion
Cathodic protection
Aluminium Sacrificial
Anode Cathodic
Protection [Ref. 76, 78,
79, 84, 85, 86 & 101]

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 77 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

5.2.2 Crude Main Oil Line (MOL) – Pipeline Id. No. 1, 1a

CO2 is expected to be low in MOL after multiple stage separation. SGS has measured 0.3669
mole% of CO2 in MOL (Appendix P). Water is removed however not completely ‘dry’. Corrosive gas
is allowed to bubble out at reduced pressure. Hence corrosion rate is expected to be lower than
FWS. Corrosion rate for MOL is predicted at 0.05mm/year using ECE5.1.1 as per Table 5-23. Details
are tabulated in Appendix N.

Other credible corrosion threats and corrosion barriers for MOL is tabulated in Table 5-21.

Table 5-21 Corrosion Threats and Barriers for MOL (as per Current Operating Condition)
Corrosion Threat Corrosion Barrier Remark
Max. 0.3669 mole %
Corrosion inhibitor
CO2 Corrosion CO2
MEC1170A [Ref. 109]
[Appendix P]
Corrosion inhibitor 120ppm Acetic acid [Ref.
Organic Corrosion
MEC1170A [Ref. 109] 106]
At risk if only oxygen
ingression occurs.
Oxygen corrosion Corrosion allowance
Information on CA not
available.
Biocide MEC6112.NR
Microbial-Induced Corrosion SRB count 102 [Ref. 110]
[Ref. 109]
Internal

Company has reported


negligible H2S. Partial
pressure of H2S shall be
<3.5mbar if pipelines
Sulphide Stress Cracking (SSC) None (Low risk).
material do not comply
with sour service
requirement as per
NACE MR0175
Negligible H2S. Non-high
Hydrogen Induced Cracking (HIC) None (Low risk).
strength steel.
Comply with weekly
Under Deposit Corrosion Routine pigging requirement [Ref. 104] as
of 31 Dec 2015.
Atmospheric Corrosion (above water) Coating/painting As per Company spec.
Coal Tar Enamel (CTE),
3 Layer Polypropylene
External

(3LPP) and/or Asphalt


External coating + Enamel [Ref. 54]
Seawater Corrosion
Cathodic protection
Aluminium Sacrificial
Anode Cathodic
Protection [Ref. 75]

5.2.3 Gas Pipelines – Pipeline Id. No. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 23, 24 & 25

All carbon steel gas pipelines supply dry gaslift from Glycol Dehydration Unit (GDU) at Seligi A to
neighbouring satellite platforms. The operation temperature is set above the water dew point of
hydrocarbon gas, thus no condensed water is expected to enter these pipelines during normal
operation. Despite dry condition (negligible metal loss due to corrosion), the corrosion assessment
needs to be conducted with anticipation of GDU operates at reduced efficiency or temporarily
breakdown at Seligi A to predict worst case scenario for FFP assessment. Under these
circumstances, dry gas pipelines corrosion assessment philosophy will be based on 9lb/MMscfd
[Ref. 104] (Appendix O) condensed water entering the pipelines for 24 days per year during process
upset.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 78 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

In the presence of condensed water, the main corrosive components that can contribute to internal
corrosion are CO2 which has been measured at maximum of 5.4445 mole% (Appendix P). Wet
corrosion rates for gas pipelines are predicted in the range of 0.32mm/year to 10.18mm/year. These
corrosion rates are revised to simulate only 24 days/year of wet operation. Gas pipelines shall
operate in dry mode during normal operation i.e. negligible corrosion rates are expected (5.8E-
05mm/year to 1.8E-03 mm/year) as per Table 5-23. Details are tabulated in Appendix N.

Other credible corrosion threats and corrosion barriers for dry gas pipelines during process upset i.e.
GDU temporarily breakdown or operates at reduced efficiency is tabulated in Table 5-22.

Table 5-22 Corrosion Threats and Barriers for Gas Pipelines (during process upset) (as per
Current Operating Condition)
Corrosion Threat Corrosion Barrier Remark
Dehydration. No actual
Max. 5.4445 mole %
CO2 Corrosion information on corrosion
CO2 [Appendix P]
allowance.
Dehydration. No actual
Not measured. At risk if
Organic Corrosion information on corrosion
present.
allowance.
Company has reported
Internal

negligible H2S. If wet


service is anticipated and
pipelines material do not
Sulphide Stress Cracking (SSC) Dehydration. comply with sour service
requirement as per
NACE MR0175, partial
pressure of H2S shall be
<3.5mbar.
Negligible H2S. Non-high
Hydrogen Induced Cracking (HIC) Dehydration.
strength steel (low risk)
Atmospheric Corrosion (above water) Coating/painting As per Company spec.
Coal Tar Enamel (CTE),
3 Layer Polypropylene
(3LPP), Asphalt Enamel
and/or Fusion Bonded
Epoxy (FBE) [Ref. 62,
External

63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68,


External coating +
Seawater Corrosion 72, 73 & 74]
Cathodic protection
Aluminium Sacrificial
Anode Cathodic
Protection [Ref. 80, 81,
82, 83, 88, 89, 90, 94, 98
& 100]

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 79 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 5-23 Predicted Corrosion Rates for Seligi and PM8 Pipelines using ECE 5.1.1.
Corrosion Rate (mm/year)
IP
Id. ILI (IC_FINNESE) Note 1
Pipeline description Service Run
# ECE5 Based on Based on
Year
Depth Length
1 18” SEA - TAP Crude 2008 0.05 0.19 2.40
1a 18” SEA - TAP (Partial replacement) Crude 2014 0.05 0.09 5.31
2 18" SEB – SEA FWS 2006 0.21 0.67 9.78
2010 0.76 41.44
5 18" SEE – SEA FWS 0.07
2015 0.51 5.21
2006 0.15 0.93
6 12" SEG – SEA FWS 0.35
2013 0.12 2.82
10” SEH - Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline
8 FWS 0.80 No IP run
SEB-SEA)
10* 10" SEA – SEB Gas 2006 4.2E-04 0.12 11.17
11* 10" SEA – SED Gas 2011 1.0E-04 0.07 2.78
12* 6" SEA – SEG Gas 2012 4.5E-04 0.06 1.57
13* 6” SED – SEC Gas 2012 1.9E-04 0.06 0.50
14* 8" SEB – SEE Gas 2011 6.6E-04 0.11 1.95
15* 6" SED – SEF Gas 2012 2.0E-04 0.10 1.60
6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline SEA-SEB)
16* Gas 9.1E-04 No IP run
- SHE
2004 3.11 73.50
17* 24” SEA – ANGSI Gas 5.8E-05
2012 0.49 4.40
18 16” RAA – SEA FWS 2008 1.34 0.99 12.75
2012 0.53 30.18
19 18” LWA – SEA FWS 1.09
2015 0.43 25.21
12” SRA - Subsea Lateral Tie-In
21 FWS 0.34 No IP run
(pipeline LWA-SEA)
22* 8” SEA - Lateral tie-in Gas 2011 8.9E-04 0.22 9.64
8” Lateral Tie-in RAA - LWA (pipeline
23* Gas 1.1E-03 No IP run
RAA-LWA)
6” Subsea Lateral Tie-In (pipeline RAA-
24* Gas 1.8E-03 No IP run
LWA) - SRA
6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline SEA-RAA)
25* Gas 1.8E-03 No IP run
- RAB
Notes:
1. Corrosion rates calculated are based on the worst defect depth and length as reported in the ILI report, assuming
constant rate per year starting from the installation year of the pipeline.
2. * indicated corrosion rate represent continuous wet operation throughout a year. Only 24 day/year of wet operation is
expected i.e. Glycol Dehydration Unit operates at reduced efficiency or breakdown. Revised corrosion rate [(wet
corrosion rate/365*24)/365] as per Table 5-23.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 80 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Corrosion rates predicted by ECE5.1.1 are usually lower than IP results as uniform corrosion rates
are provided instead of worst pit detected during In-line Inspection (ILI). As expected, FWS pipelines
are predicted to have highest corrosion rate due to corrosion multiphase environment. Single phase
crude oil is less corrosive than FWS while corrosion rates for dry gas pipelines are almost negligible.

The corrosion modelling from the software only gives corrosion rates based on the available data
(e.g. production rate). However in some cases, large defects were detected on pipelines even
though the corrosion rates from the model are low. For an example, long shutdown period without
proper corrosion protection (i.e. no inhibitor was injected) and therefore low flow with water stagnant
leads to excessive corrosion. This kind of situation should be avoided and FFP study will not take
such scenario into consideration.

5.2.4 H2S Sensitivity Analysis

There is no evidence of H2S in the sample formation fluid for Seligi and PM8 pipelines. Preliminary
indications are that reservoirs are sweet i.e. Sulphide Stress Cracking is at low risk and NACE
MR0175 / ISO 15156 restrictions on materials will not be applied.

However, recent sampling monitoring has recorded a maximum of 102 Colonies/ml is present in SeA-
TaP MOL. This indicates SRB might have contaminated Seligi and PM8 facilities. These bacteria
metabolize sulphates from the process fluid, and produce H2S. The CO2 corrosion rates may be
modified by the presence of H2S depending on CO2 / H2S ratio, temperature, the presence of
chlorides and organic acids. A sensitivity check is carried out using 5ppm of H2S to study the impact
of H2S on corrosion rates.

As per Table 5-24, corrosion rates for gas pipelines are less affected due to dry operating condition.
However, the presence of 5ppm of H2S tends to double corrosion rates at the same operating
parameters for Crude and FWS. Pitting is likely to occur if H2S is present. See Appendix N for
details. Therefore it is recommended to initiate H2S monitoring throughout Seligi and PM8 asset.
Bacteria mapping can also justify the location of contamination source in order to implement proper
biocide programme and reroute contamination source (i.e. open drain fluid or seawater ingress) to
other location.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 81 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 5-24 H2S Sensitivity Check


Corrosion Rate (mm/year)
Id # Pipeline description Service
0ppm H2S 5ppm H2S
1 18” SEA - TAP Crude 0.05 0.14
1a 18” SEA - TAP (Partial replacement) Crude 0.05 0.14
2 18" SEB – SEA FWS 0.21 0.51
5 18" SEE – SEA FWS 0.07 0.11
6 12" SEG – SEA FWS 0.35 0.82
8 10” SEH - Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline SEB-SEA) FWS 0.80 1.59
10 10" SEA – SEB Gas 4.2E-04 4.1E-04
11 10" SEA – SED Gas 1.0E-04 1.8E-04
12 6" SEA – SEG Gas 4.5E-04 4.5E-04
13 6” SED – SEC Gas 1.9E-04 1.8E-04
14 8" SEB – SEE Gas 6.6E-04 6.6E-04
15 6" SED – SEF Gas 2.0E-04 1.9E-04
16 6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline SEA-SEB) - SHE Gas 9.1E-04 9.0E-04
17 24” SEA – ANGSI Gas 5.8E-05 5.6E-05
18 16” RAA – SEA FWS 1.34 1.34
19 18” LWA – SEA FWS 1.09 1.09
21 12” SRA - Subsea Lateral Tie-In (pipeline LWA-SEA) FWS 0.34 0.34
22 8” SEA - Lateral tie-in Gas 8.9E-04 9.7E-04
23 8” Lateral Tie-in RAA - LWA (pipeline RAA-LWA) Gas 1.1E-03 1.1E-03
24 6” Subsea Lateral Tie-In (pipeline RAA-LWA) - SRA Gas 1.8E-03 1.8E-03
25 6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline SEA-RAA) - RAB Gas 1.8E-03 1.7E-03

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 82 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

5.3 Corrosion Defect Assessment (for pipelines with single / multiple ILI)

This section presents the results of the corrosion defect assessments for Seligi & PM8 pipelines with
single / multiple ILI.

5.3.1 Summary of Anomalies based on ILI runs

ILI was performed on the pipelines to identify corrosion features, manufacturing defects and other
anomalies. The anomalies identified during the inspection are summarized in Table 5-25. Some of
the ILI runs were able to identify metal objects (Pipelines Id. No. 5, 10 and 17), however the ILI were
not able to classify the type of objects. For identification of metal objects on the pipeline, the pipeline
underwater inspections were further reviewed [Ref. 1 to 16].

For reported anomalies/defects due to manufacturing, the reported wall loss was compared with the
acceptable tolerance for wall thickness of line pipe (for different nominal wall thickness) as specified
in API 5L – Specification for Line Pipe [Ref. 52]. If the reported defect depth as per ILI is larger than
the specified tolerance, the defect may have been a corrosion feature instead of manufacturing
defects (manufacturing defect is typically small in size). Defects which exhibit this behaviour shall be
included in the SWP calculations. The identifications of manufacturing defects are presented in Table
5-26. Further details of manufacturing defects are summarized in Appendix B.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 83 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 5-25 Summary of Anomalies as per reported in ILI


Numbers of Anomalies as per ILI
Id. Pipeline ILI ILI
Metal Loss - Others Ref.
# Name Year Vendor Metal Loss - Metal Loss - Metal Girth Minor
Clustered
Corrosion Manufacturing Objects Weld Dent
Corrosion
18” SEA - 2008 Romstar 206 37 20
1 - - - - -
TAP 2014 Rosen 362 - 19
18" SEB -
2 2006 Rosen 7977 1269 - - - - 1 21
SEA
18" SEE - 2010 TPS 54741 1 3 23
5 - - - -
SEA 2015 Romstar 45189 1 - 22
12" SEG - 2006 Rosen - 3 25
6 - - - - -
SEA 2013 Romstar - 7 24
10" SEA -
10 2006 PII 125 - 1 10 - - 26
SEB
10" SEA - 2011 Rosen 3 1 6 102
11 - - - -
SED 2015 Romstar - - 12 27
6" SEA - 1996 - - - - 29
12 Rosen - - -
SEG 2012 40 10 1 1 28
6” SED -
13 2012 Rosen 8 - - - - - - 30
SEC
8" SEB - 1998 - 32
14 Rosen - - - - - -
SEE 2011 17 31
6" SED -
15 2012 Rosen 16 - - - - - - 33
SEF
24” SEA - 2004 PII 1395 2 35
17 - - - - -
ANGSI 2012 Rosen 98 - 34
16” RAA -
18 2008 Rosen 139 - - - - - - 36
SEA
18” LWA - 2012 3997 609 1 38
19 Romstar - - - -
SEA 2015 4472 564 1 37
8” SEA -
22 2012 Rosen 534 - 19 - - - - 39
LWA

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev. C | July 2016

Page 84 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 5-26 Pipelines with Manufacturing Defect


WT
Id. Pipeline ILI ILI Metal Loss -
Tolerance Note
# Name Year Vendor Manufacturing
(%WT)
23 defects have reported depth of
18” SEA - 2008 Romstar 37 12.5 more than 12% thus considered as
1
TAP corrosion features
2014 Rosen - - -
18" SEE - 2010 TPS 1 12.5 -
5
SEA 2015 Romstar 1 12.5 -
12" SEG - 2006 Rosen 3 12.5 -
6
SEA 2013 Romstar 7 12.5 -
Defect reported depth is
10" SEA -
10 2006 PII 1 12.5 30%.Defect is considered as
SEB
corrosion feature
4 defects have reported depth of
2011 Rosen 6 12.5 more than 12% thus considered as
10" SEA - corrosion features
11
SED 6 defects have reported depth of
2015 Romstar 12 12.5 more than 12% thus considered as
corrosion features
1996 - - -
6" SEA - 6 defects have higher depth than
12 Rosen
SEG 2012 10 12.5 the specified tolerance. These are
considered corrosion feature
8 defects have reported depth of
8” SEA -
22 2012 Rosen 19 12.5 more than 12% thus considered as
LWA
corrosion features

Defects with reported depth exceeding the WT tolerance as specified in Table 5-26 will be treated as
corrosion features, and included in the SWP calculations.

5.3.2 Review of Underwater Inspection

The underwater inspection was performed on the pipelines on various occasions. The pipeline and
riser were reviewed to identify any anomalies. Several metal objects were identified to be in contact
with the pipeline and riser. The summary of metal objects on the pipelines is summarized in Table 5-
27. In general, no visible damages were reported on the pipeline at all location with metallic debris.
Further details on the underwater inspection findings are presented in Appendix C.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 85 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 5-27 Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser


No. of
Id. # Pipeline Name Inspection Year Inspection Vendor Metal Ref.
Objects
1 18” SEA - TAP 2015 Subsea Explore Services 2 1
2 18" SEB - SEA 2015 Subsea Explore Services 2 2
5 18" SEE - SEA 2015 Subsea Explore Services 8 3
6 12" SEG - SEA 2010 NA 11 101
10 10" SEA - SEB 2015 Subsea Explore Services 10 4
11 10" SEA - SED 2015 Subsea Explore Services 4 16
12 6" SEA - SEG 2011 Offshore Subsea Works 4 98
13 6” SED - SEC 2015 Subsea Explore Services 10 15
14 8" SEB - SEE 2010 NA 7 100
15 6" SED - SEF 2011 Offshore Subsea Works 3 99
17 24” SEA - ANGSI 2006 SARKU Engineering Services 11 94
18 16” RAA - SEA 2015 Subsea Explore Services 2 11
19 18” LWA - SEA 2015 Subsea Explore Services 2 7
22 8” SEA - LWA 2015 Subsea Explore Services 6 10

In addition, weight coating damage was reported on several pipelines, as summarized in Table 5-4.

Table 5-28 Pipelines with Concrete Coating Damage


No. of
Pipeline Inspection Concrete
Id. # KP Note
Name Year Coating
Damage
Refer to
18” SEA - Damages are in the form of coating
1 2015 11 Appendix
TAP crack and missing coating.
C
Damage is in the form of missing
6" SEA - coating from 8 o’clock to 12.30
12 2015 1 0.318
SEG o’clock position of approximately
100mm x 150mm in area.

Further details on the underwater inspection findings are presented in Appendix C.

5.3.3 Cathodic Protection System

Cathodic Protection (CP) survey was conducted along the riser and pipeline, where CP
measurements were taken on riser bend, clamps and anodes on pipeline. The measured CP
readings on all pipelines were concluded to be acceptable -1061mV (pipeline is cathodically
protected if the CP is -850mV to -1049mv). However, there were anodes at various locations with
significant depletion of more than 75%, and these were reported as anomalies during the inspection.
Regular monitoring and surveying is recommended to ensure continued protection especially at the
locations which shows significant depletion.

The CP readings and anodes with depletion >75% are summarized in Table 5-29.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 86 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 5-29 CP readings and Estimated Depletion >75% at Pipeline


No of
CP reading (mV)
anodes
Id. Inspection
Pipeline Name Inspection Vendor with Ref.
# Year
min max depletion
>75%
1 18” SEA - TAP 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -917 -1072 1 75
2 18" SEB - SEA 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -1036 -967 3 76
5 18" SEE - SEA 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -953 -1061 18 78
6 12" SEG - SEA 2010 NA -991 -1021 1 101
10 10" SEA - SEB 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -850 -1049 2 80
11 10" SEA - SED 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -945 -1036 22 81
12 6" SEA - SEG 2011 Offshore Subsea Works -979 -1039 NA 98
13 6” SED - SEC 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -953 -1020 9 82
14 8" SEB - SEE 2010 NA -1016 -951 - 100
15 6" SED - SEF 2011 Offshore Subsea Works -995 -1012 NA 99
SARKU Engineering
17 24” SEA - ANGSI 2006 -1006 -1057 - 94
Services
18 16” RAA - SEA 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -971 -1046 0 84
19 18” LWA - SEA 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -979 -1055 2 85
22 8” SEA - LWA 2015 Ikon Subsea Technology -943 -1054 4 87

KP locations of anodes with significant depletion are presented in Table 5-30.

Table 5-30 KP Location of Anodes with depletion >75%

Id. # Pipeline Name KP

1 18” SEA - TAP 25.512


2 18" SEB - SEA 3.112,3.986,4.101

0.054,0.014,0.178,0.239,0.302,0.364,0.487,0.494,
5 18" SEE - SEA 0.673,0.736,0.797,7.297,7.359,7.421,
7.483,7.544,7.607,7.619

6 12" SEG - SEA 4.445


10 10" SEA - SEB 4.188,0.312

0.031,0.157,0.28,0.403,0.648,0.773,0.894,
11 10" SEA - SED 1.018,1.262,1.388,1.51,1.633,1.755,2.01,
2.369,2.493,2.617,2.74,2.866,3.113,3.235,3.358

0.035,0.111,0.187,0.263,0.514,
13 6” SED - SEC
0.67,3.084,3.211,3.337
14 8" SEB - SEE 3.58
19 18” LWA - SEA 0.219,0.533
22 8” SEA - LWA 0.016,0.04,0.226,52.522

Further details on the CP inspection findings are presented in Appendix D.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 87 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

5.3.5 Corrosion Features – pipelines with ILI

The corrosion features as per detected during ILI run are summarized in Table 5-31, based on
internal and external feature.

Table 5-31 Corrosion Features as per Detected During ILI


Id. Corrosion Locations
Pipeline Name ILI Year
# Internal External Total
2008 197 9 206
1 18” SEA - TAP
2014 196 166 362
2 18" SEB - SEA 2006 9246 0 9246
2010 50207 7 50214
5 18" SEE - SEA
2015 26803 10 26813
2006 1 0 1
6 12" SEG - SEA
2013 1 0 1
10 10" SEA - SEB 2006 86 39 125
2011 7 1 8
11 10" SEA - SED
2015 6 0 6
1996 0 0 0
12 6" SEA - SEG
2012 19 21 40
13 6” SED - SEC 2012 2 6 8
1998 0 0 0
14 8" SEB - SEE
2011 5 12 17
15 6" SED - SEF 2012 4 12 16
2004 890 286 1176
17 24” SEA - ANGSI
2012 94 4 98
18 16” RAA - SEA 2008 138 1 139
2012 3055 0 3055
19 18” LWA - SEA
2015 3610 16 3626
22 8” SEA - LWA 2012 529 13 542

In addition, the corrosion features have been classified based on corrosion type, and as shown in
Table 5-32 (sample shown is for pipeline Id. No. 10). The corrosion classifications of all pipelines are
as presented Appendix E.

Table 5-32 Summary of Corrosion Features along Pipeline and Riser (Pipeline Id. No. 10)
Corrosion Defect Locations
Corrosion Classification
Internal External
General wall loss 56 18
Circumferential grooving 12 4
Axial grooving 0 0
Pitting 8 14
Circumferential slotting 6 3
Axial slotting 2 0
Pinhole 2 0
Sub Total 86 39
Total 125

The reported worst corrosion features for both internal and external with highest depth as per
reported in ILI (inspection tool accuracy is not included) are presented in Table 5-33 and Table 5-34
respectively.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 88 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 5-33 Summary of Worst Internal Corrosion based on Reported Depth as per ILI
Id. Pipeline ILI ILI Defect Distance Orientation Depth Length Width
# Name Year Vendor Location (m)[1] (hrs:min) (%WT)[2] (mm) (mm)
18” SEA - 2008 Romstar 43,918.25 2:30 40 17 58
1 Pipeline
TAP 2014 Rosen 4,590.11 7:58 31 10 32
18" SEB -
2 2006 Rosen Pipeline 677.34 6:10 63 13 22
SEA
18" SEE - 2010 TPS Pipeline 1,778.70 11:00 72 34 40
5
SEA 2015 Romstar Pipeline 1,780.08 5:16 64 32 32
12" SEG - 2006 Rosen 440.41 2:36 18 11 34
6 Pipeline
SEA 2013 Romstar 1,777.78 2:20 20 50 46
10" SEA -
10 2006 PII Pipeline 3,217.00 11:00 20 15 16
SEB
10" SEA - 2011 Rosen 1,980.31 9:52 21 18 15
11 Pipeline
SED 2015 Romstar 620.89 12:10 16 20 69
6" SEA - 1996 - - - - - -
12 Rosen
SEG 2012 Pipeline 113.50 0:19 13 26 49
6” SED -
13 2012 Rosen Pipeline 2,004.45 9:03 10 8 15
SEC
8" SEB - 1998 - - - - - -
14 Rosen
SEE 2011 Riser 3.43 8:38 16 34 15
6" SED -
15 2012 Rosen Pipeline 4,488.07 2:06 16 23 42
SEF
24” SEA - 2004 PII 82,116.70 6:45 28 19 26
17 Pipeline
ANGSI 2012 Rosen 81,672.20 6:36 22 11 15
16” RAA -
18 2008 Rosen Pipeline 10,757.00 12:28 25 13 14
SEA
18” LWA - 2012 34,903.80 5:09 41 47 10
19 Romstar Pipeline
SEA 2015 34,782.40 5:10 42 45 10
8” SEA -
22 2012 Rosen Riser 4.79 6:16 32 33 51
LWA
Notes:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

Table 5-34 Summary of Worst External Corrosion based on Reported Depth as per ILI
Id. Pipeline ILI ILI Defect Distance Orientation Depth Length Width
# Name Year Vendor Location (m)[1] (hrs:min) (%WT)[2] (mm) (mm)
2008 Romstar 1.08 10:43 43 15 51
1 18” SEA - TAP Riser
2014 Rosen 45,606.84 6:28 28 9 38
2 18" SEB - SEA 2006 Rosen - - - - - -
2010 TPS Riser 7,608.70 0:15 29 26 8
5 18" SEE - SEA
2015 Romstar SEA 7,755.63 0:55 10 76 480
12" SEG - 2006 Rosen Pipeline 2,990.88 9:19 10 15 14
6
SEA 2013 Romstar - - - - - -
10 10" SEA - SEB 2006 PII Pipeline 3,733.20 0:15 31 56 44
10" SEA - 2011 Rosen Pipeline 631.07 11:44 15 64 29
11
SED 2015 Romstar - - - - - -
1996 -
12 6" SEA - SEG Rosen Riser
2012 39.40 1:27 39 36 102
SEA
Riser
13 6” SED - SEC 2012 Rosen 3,599.98 9:45 16 14 26
SEC
1998 - - - - - -
14 8" SEB - SEE Rosen
2011 3,792.74 5:30 27 26 76
15 6" SED - SEF 2012 Rosen Pipeline 4,508.92 4:34 21 110 73
24” SEA - 2004 PII Riser 173.90 11:15 36 45 15
17
ANGSI 2012 Rosen Pipeline 56,173.40 3:05 21 23 57
16” RAA -
18 2008 Rosen Pipeline 265.20 5:23 23 11 89
SEA

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 89 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Id. Pipeline ILI ILI Defect Distance Orientation Depth Length Width
# Name Year Vendor Location (m)[1] (hrs:min) (%WT)[2] (mm) (mm)
18” LWA - 2012 - - - - - -
19 Romstar
SEA 2015 Pipeline 8,478.60 0:28 44 94 55
22 8” SEA - LWA 2012 Rosen Riser 14,18.09 10:46 23 10 15
Notes:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

The distribution of all detected corrosion anomalies along the pipeline are based on defect depth,
orientation, length and width are illustrated in Figure 5-30 to Figure 5-33 (sample shown is for
Pipeline Id. No. 10). The distributions of all pipelines are presented in Appendix F.

Figure 5-30 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth (for Pipeline Id. No. 10)

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 90 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Figure 5-31 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation (for Pipeline Id. No. 10)

Figure 5-32 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length (for Pipeline Id. No. 10)

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 91 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Figure 5-33 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width (for Pipeline Id. No. 10)

5.3.6 Safe Working Pressure of the As-Found Corrosion Anomalies – pipelines with ILI

IC-FINESSE was utilized to perform the safe working pressure calculations for the reported corrosion
features at riser and pipeline, with the reduced MAOP as defined in Table 3-5. Figure 5-34 and
Figure 5-35 illustrates the IC-FINESSE assessments (for Pipeline Id. No. 10 with assessment
pressure of 17.1MPa). The red line on the graph indicates the failure line, whereby defects above the
line has failed the SWP checks criteria (either defect depth has exceeded 80% or ERF is greater
than 1).

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 92 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Figure 5-34 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG,


using Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at Riser Section)

Figure 5-35 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG,


using Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at Pipeline Section)

IC-FINESSE assessment results for all pipelines are presented in Appendix G.

The worst corrosion defects for both internal and external features based on defect depth (inclusive
of the inspection tool accuracy) are summarized in Table 5-35 and Table 5-36.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 93 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 5-35 Summary of Worst Internal Corrosion based on Defect Depth (inclusive of tool accuracy)
Id. Pipeline ILI ILI Defect Distance Depth Length Width SWP
ERF
# Name Year Vendor Classification (m)[1] (%WT)[2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
Circumferential
2008 Romstar 43,918.25 55 17 58 11.02 0.19
18” SEA - Grooving
1
TAP Circumferential
2014 Rosen 4,590.11 41 10 32 17.87 0.11
Slotting
18" SEB - Circumferential
2 2006 Rosen 677.34 78 13 22 27.91 0.27
SEA Slotting
18" SEE - 2010 TPS 1,778.70 82 34 40 26.46 0.17
5 Pitting
SEA 2015 Romstar 1,780.10 84 32 32 23.47 0.19
Circumferential
12" SEG - 2006 Rosen 440.41 28 11 34 28.90 0.15
6 Slotting
SEA
2013 Romstar General 1,777.78 35 50 46 26.02 0.17
10" SEA -
10 2006 PII Pitting 3,217.00 30 15 16 27.70 0.62
SEB
2011 Rosen Pitting 1,984.17 31 18 15 27.50 0.63
10" SEA -
11 Circumferential
SED 2015 Romstar 620.89 31 20 69 26.69 0.65
Grooving
6" SEA - 1996 - - - - - - -
12 Rosen
SEG 2012 Pitting 113.50 32 26 49 33.02 0.53
6” SED - Circumferential
13 2012 Rosen 2,004.45 20 8 15 41.65 0.43
SEC Slotting
8" SEB - 1998 - - - - - - -
14 Rosen
SEE 2011 Axial Grooving 3.43 26 34 15 29.19 0.61
6" SED -
15 2012 Rosen Pitting 4,488.07 38 23 42 27.35 0.65
SEF
Circumferential
24” SEA - 2004 PII
Slotting
82,116.70 43 19 26 26.28 0.54
17
ANGSI
2012 Rosen Pinhole 81,672.20 32 11 15 24.46 0.54
16” RAA -
18 2008 Rosen Pinhole 10,757.00 35 13 14 23.80 0.16
SEA
18” LWA - 2012 34,903.80 61 47 10 19.46 0.25
19 Romstar Axial Slotting
SEA 2015 34,782.40 62 94 55 15.34 0.31
8” SEA - General Wall
22 2012 Rosen 4.79 42 33 51 19.87 0.85
LWA Loss
Notes:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths inclusive of the inspection tool accuracy (as per Table 3-6).

Table 5-36 Summary of Worst External Corrosion based on Depth (inclusive of tool accuracy)
Id. Pipeline ILI ILI Defect Distance Depth Length Width SWP
ERF
# Name Year Vendor Classification (m)[1] (%WT)[2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
Circumferential
18” SEA - 2008 Romstar 1.08 58 15 51 14.18 0.14
1 Grooving
TAP
2014 Rosen Axial Grooving 52,301.60 39 34 17 9.48 0.22
18" SEB -
2 2006 Rosen - - - - - - -
SEA
18" SEE - 2010 TPS Axial Slotting 7,608.70 39 26 8 32.85 0.14
5
SEA 2015 Romstar General 7,755.63 35 76 480 38.57 0.12
12" SEG - 2006 Rosen - - - - - - -
6
SEA 2013 Romstar - - - - - - -
10" SEA - General Wall
10 2006 PII 3,733.20 41 56 44 24.13 0.71
SEB Loss
10" SEA - 2011 Rosen Axial Grooving 638.47 30 64 29 25.48 0.68
11
SED 2015 Romstar - - - - - - -
1996 - - - - - - -
6" SEA -
12 Rosen General Wall
SEG 2012 39.40 54 36 102 23.34 0.75
Loss

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 94 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Id. Pipeline ILI ILI Defect Distance Depth Length Width SWP
ERF
# Name Year Vendor Classification (m)[1] (%WT)[2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
6” SED -
13 2012 Rosen Pitting 3,599.98 26 14 26 28.49 0.62
SEC
1998 - - - - - - -
8" SEB -
14 Rosen General Wall
SEE 2011 3,792.70 37 26 76 28.92 0.62
Loss
6" SED -
15 2012 Rosen Axial Grooving 1,166.09 46 38 15 35.67 0.50
SEF
2004 PII Axial Slotting 173.90 46 45 15 17.73 0.80
24” SEA -
17 Circumferential
ANGSI 2012 Rosen 56,173.40 31 23 57 19.18 0.74
Grooving
16” RAA - Circumferential
18 2008 Rosen 256.20 33 11 89 28.89 0.13
SEA Slotting
18” LWA - 2012 - - - - - - -
19 Romstar
SEA 2015 Pitting 8,478.60 44 94 55 26.44 0.18
8” SEA -
22 2012 Rosen Axial Grooving 24,809.82 7:32 51 15 21.55 0.74
LWA
Notes:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths inclusive of the inspection tool accuracy (as per Table 3-6).

The safe working pressures of all metal loss features are plotted and as illustrated in Figure 5-36
(sample for Pipeline Id. No. 10). In general, the SWP of all single defects for all pipelines are shown
to be higher than the reduced MAOP.

SWP plots for all pipelines are presented in Appendix H.

Figure 5-36 Safe Working Pressures of Metal Loss Features

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 95 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

The worst corrosion defects for both internal and external features based on ERF results are
summarized in Table 5-37 and Table 5-38 respectively.

Table 5-37 Summary of Worst Internal Corrosion based on ERF Results


Id. Pipeline ILI Distance Measured Length Width MAOP SWP
ERF
# Name Year (m)[1] Depth(%WT)[2] (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
2008 50,697.14 29 21 32 2.05 9.2 0.22
1 18” SEA - TAP
2014 52,317.32 23 66 118 2.05 8.9 0.23
18" SEB -
2 2006 277.80 29 121 95 7.66 24.01 0.32
SEA
18" SEE - 2010 1,348.10 65 139 53 4.54 18.47 0.25
5
SEA 2015 5,462.80 48 356 1316 4.54 17.27 0.26
12" SEG - 2006 440.41 18 11 34 4.33 28.9 0.15
6
SEA 2013 1,777.80 20 50 46 4.33 26.02 0.17
10" SEA -
10 2006 1,086.30 7 171 75 17.70 25.50 0.67
SEB
10" SEA - 2011 618.37 13 40 15 17.3 26.65 0.65
11
SED 2015 2,116.87 14 30 114 17.3 26.36 0.66
1996 - - - - - - -
12 6" SEA - SEG
2012 38.84 12 31 32 17.60 27.08 0.65
13 6” SED - SEC 2012 2,004.45 10 8 15 17.74 41.65 0.43
1998 - - - - - - -
14 8" SEB - SEE
2011 3.43 26 34 15 17.84 29.19 0.61
15 6" SED - SEF 2012 4,488.07 16 23 42 17.85 27.35 0.65
24” SEA - 2004 82,232.50 16 135 41 14.16 17.07 0.83
17
ANGSI 2012 81,819.70 15 29 15 14.16 18.24 0.78
16” RAA -
18 2008 26,927.50 15 42 42 3.82 23.36 0.16
SEA
18” LWA - 2012 20,640.50 38 123 10 4.83 16.43 0.29
19
SEA 2015 35,328.70 38 171 34 4.83 15.34 0.31
22 8” SEA - LWA 2012 4.65 19 135 164 16.9 18.58 0.91
Notes:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths as per reported in the ILI

Table 5-38 Summary of Worst External Corrosion based on ERF Results


Id. Pipeline ILI Distance Measured Length Width MAOP SWP
ERF
# Name Year (m)[1] Depth(%WT)[2] (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
2008 27,274.30 17 20 45 2.05 11.50 0.18
1 18” SEA - TAP
2014 52,301.69 19 58 67 2.05 7.71 0.27
18" SEB -
2 2006 - - - - - - -
SEA
18" SEE - 2010 7,607.20 22 151 484 4.54 29.56 0.15
5
SEA 2015 4,629.60 35 24 10 4.54 29.77 0.15
12" SEG - 2006 - - - - - - -
6
SEA 2013 - - - - - - -
10" SEA -
10 2006 400.1 21 161 41 17.10 23.08 0.74
SEB
10" SEA - 2011 638.47 15 64 29 17.3 25.48 0.68
11
SED 2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
1996 - - - - - - -
12 6" SEA - SEG
2012 39.40 39 36 102 17.60 23.34 0.75
13 6” SED - SEC 2012 3,600.05 10 35 46 17.74 27.64 0.64
1998 - - - - - - -
14 8" SEB - SEE
2011 3,792.74 37 26 76 17.84 28.92 0.62
15 6" SED - SEF 2012 4,508.92 21 110 73 17.85 22.31 0.80
24” SEA - 2004 175.50 20 278 54 14.16 15.58 0.91
17
ANGSI 2012 46,550.10 10 50 56 14.16 18.97 0.75

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 96 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Id. Pipeline ILI Distance Measured Length Width MAOP SWP


ERF
# Name Year (m)[1] Depth(%WT)[2] (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
16” RAA -
18 2008 265.20 23 11 89 3.82 28.89 0.13
SEA
18” LWA - 2012 - - - - - - -
19
SEA 2015 10,316.90 12 45 33 4.83 22.13 0.22
22 8” SEA - LWA 2012 59,445.57 14 66 25 16.9 19.87 0.85
Notes:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths as per reported in the ILI

The detail listing of the worst defects based on ERF for all pipelines are presented in Appendix I.

5.3.7 SWP Assessment based on Design MAOP

As an additional check to ascertain if the pipeline requires ‘formal’ derating, the SWP of the worst
corrosion feature as presented in Section 5.35 is checked against the design MAOP. The results of
the assessment are presented in Table 5-39

Table 5-39 SWP Assessment based on Design MAOP


Worst Worst
Design Internal Internal Pressure
Id. WT MAOP ERF ERF ILI
Pipe Name Pressure Defect External De-rating
# (mm) (MPa) (Internal) (External) Year
(MPa) SWP SWP (Y/N)
(MPa) (MPa)
11.9/
1 18” SEA - TAP 10.20 5.0[1] 8.90 7.71 0.56 0.65 2014 N
7.9
28.5/
2 18” SEB - SEA 23.93 21.4 24.01 NA 0.89 NA 2006 N
19.1
25.4/
5 18” SEE - SEA 23.93 23.9 17.27 29.77 1.38 0.80 2015 Y
19.1
6 12” SEG - SEA 12.7 24.03 23.9 26.02 NA 0.92 NA 2013 N
15.9/
10 10” SEA - SEB 23.93 21.4 25.50 23.08 0.84 0.93 2006 N
11.1
15.9/
11 10” SEA - SED 23.93 21.4 26.36 NA 0.81 NA 2016 N
11.1
12 6” SEA - SEG 9.5 24.03 22.8 27.08 23.34 0.84 0.98 2012 N
13 6” SED - SEC 9.5 23.93 23.9 41.65 27.64 0.57 0.87 2012 N
14 8” SEB - SEE 12.7 23.93 23.9 29.19 28.92 0.82 0.83 2011 N
15 6” SED - SEF 9.7 24.33 15.5 27.35 22.31 0.57 0.69 2012 N
22.2/
17 24” SEA - ANGSI 15.04 15.0 18.24 18.97 0.82 0.79 2012 N
15.9
18 16” RAA - SEA 15.9 17.90 17.9 23.36 27.83 0.77 0.64 2004 N
19.1/
19 18” LWA – SEA 17.90 17.9 15.34 22.13 1.17 0.81 2015 Y
14.3
9.5/
22 8” SEA - LWA 17.90 17.9 18.58 19.87 0.96 0.90 2011 N
8.7
Note:
1) Worst corrosion defects are identified at pipeline section with WT of 7.9mm. Hence, MAOP of 5MPA is utilized.

Based on the results, the worst corrosion features of pipeline Id. No. 5 and 19 have SWP below the
MAOP (or ERF greater than 1); hence pressure derating is required for these lines at the time of the
ILI run (2015).

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 97 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

5.3.8 Interactive Defect Assessment

Interactive Defect Assessment was performed using an in-house MATHCAD spreadsheet as per
DNV-RP-F101 Part B – Allowable Stress Design [Ref. 43]. The total identified interacting defect and
the defect with worst ERF for all pipelines are summarized in Table 5-40.

Table 5-40 Summary of Interacting Defect Results


Worst Interacting Defect Data
Total
Id. ILI ERF- ERF-
Pipeline Name Interacting Distance SWP
# Year Surface Reduced Design
Defect (m) [1]
(MPa)
MAOP MAOP
2008 30 50,697.56 Internal 8.60 0.24 0.58
1 18” SEA - TAP
2014 65 52,317.29 Internal 8.37 0.24 0.60
2 18" SEB - SEA 2006 1634 302.14 Internal 20.41 0.38 1.17
2010 6893 1,347.66 Internal 18.50 0.25 1.29
5 18" SEE - SEA
2015 266 224.29 Internal 19.11 0.24 1.25
2006 - - - - - -
6 12" SEG - SEA
2013 - - - - - -
10 10" SEA - SEB 2006 5 3,733.2 External 25.97 0.66 0.92
2011 - - - - - -
11 10" SEA - SED
2015 - - - - - -
1996 - - - - - -
12 6" SEA - SEG
2012 2 27.19 External 24.03 0.73 1.0
13 6” SED - SEC 2012 - - - - - -
1998 - - - - - -
14 8" SEB - SEE
2011 5 3,800.39 External 25.54 0.70 0.94
15 6" SED - SEF 2012 - - - - - -
2004 197 173.9 External 15.88 0.89 0.95
17 24” SEA - ANGSI
2012 27 81,672.07 Internal 24.57 0.58 0.61
18 16” RAA - SEA 2008 8 1,881.94 Internal 27.06 0.14 0.66
2012 170 26,260.43 Internal 15.69 0.31 1.14
19 18” LWA - SEA
2015 200 8,646.67 Internal 14.68 0.33 1.22
22 8” SEA - LWA 2012 3 4.09 Internal 17.75 0.952 1.01
Notes:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.

ERF based on the reduced MAOP shows that no pipelines have interacting defect with ERF>1
during the inspection year. However, ERF checks based on design MAOP shows that 5 pipelines
have ERF >1 (based on the worst interacting corrosion defect) – Pipeline Id. No. 2, 5, 12, 19 and 22..
The detail listings of interacting defects for all pipelines are presented in Appendix J.

5.3.9 Matching of Corrosion Features

For pipelines with multiple ILI run, the corrosion features were compared to identify matching defects
and observed the growth during the ILI period. Most of the lines with multiple ILI run were performed
by different vendors (with the exception of pipeline Id No. 19), and there may be difficulties in
identifying matching defects due to various reasons (different depth readings, tool tolerance, results
interpretation from vendor, etc).

The defects were matched based on the location of the defect and orientation on the pipeline.
Defects with close/similar distance and orientation are considered as match. Next, the depths of the
matching defects are checked and if there is growth in the defects depth, the corrosion rate within
the period is calculated.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 98 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

The results of the defect matching assessment are presented in Table 5-41.

Table 5-41 Defect Matching Assessment for Pipelines with multiple ILI
Matching Corrosion
Id. Pipeline ILI ILI Distance Depth
Defect Rate Note
# Name Year Vendor (m)[1] (%WT)[2]
(Y/N) (mm/year)
18” SEA - 2008 Romstar - - - No matching
1 N
TAP 2014 Rosen - - - defect
2010 TPS 1,778.7 72 Matching
defect, but
earlier ILI
18" SEE -
5 Y - showed
SEA 2015 Romstar 1,780.1 64 higher depth.
CR cannot
be estimated
12" SEG - 2006 Rosen - - - No matching
6 N
SEA 2013 Romstar - - - defect
10" SEA - 2011 Rosen - - - No matching
11 N
SED 2015 Romstar - - - defect
6" SEA - 1996 - - - No matching
12 Rosen N
SEG 2012 - - - defect
8" SEB - 1998 - - - No matching
14 Rosen N
SEE 2011 - - - defect
24” SEA - 2004 PII - - - No matching
17 N
ANGSI 2012 Rosen - - - defect
2012 32,410.69 41 Only one
matching
18” LWA -
19 Romstar Y(35) 0.048 defect with
SEA 2015 34,782.46 42 increase
growth
Notes:
2) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
3) Defect depths as per reported in the ILI

5.3.10 Remaining Life of Pipeline Section with Worst Corrosion feature – pipelines with ILI

The remaining life of the pipeline is estimated for the worst internal corrosion feature based on the
worst defect depth and ERF as described in Section 5.1.5. The corrosion rate used was based on
the current operating pressure and is presented in Table 5-23. Only the remaining life of Pipeline Id.
No. 19 is calculated using corrosion rates from ECE and matching of similar defect.

The remaining life for the worst internal corrosion features (until repair or pressure derating is
required) based on defect depth to reach 80%WT and ERF >1 are presented in Table 5-42.

Table 5-42 Remaining Life of Pipeline based on Worst Internal Corrosion Feature

Remaining Life
Corrosion Worst Worst
Id. Pipeline ILI
Rate Worst Defect Defect Note
# Name Year
(mm/year)[1] Defect (ERF- (ERF-
(Depth)[2] Reduced Design
MAOP)[3] MAOP)[4]
18” SEA 2008 Pipeline have significant remaining
1 0.05 >40 >40 >40
- TAP 2014 life due to very low corrosion rate
Pipeline will have remaining life
18" SEB
2 2006 0.21 2 32 14 of 2 years until the defect
- SEA
reaches 80%WT.
18" SEE 2010 Pipeline have worst defect more
5 0.07 NA[5] >40 NA[5]
- SEA 2015 than 80%

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 99 of 116
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Remaining Life
Corrosion Worst Worst
Id. Pipeline ILI
Rate Worst Defect Defect Note
# Name Year
(mm/year)[1] Defect (ERF- (ERF-
(Depth)[2] Reduced Design
MAOP)[3] MAOP)[4]
12" 2006
Pipeline has remaining life of 17
6 SEG - 0.35 17 >40 6
2013 years from year 2013.
SEA
10" SEA Pipeline have significant remaining
10 2006 4.2E-04 >40 >40 >40
- SEB life due to very low corrosion rate
10" SEA 2011 Pipeline have significant remaining
11 1.03E-04 >40 >40 >40
- SED 2015 life due to very low corrosion rate
6" SEA - 1996 Pipeline have significant remaining
12 4.52E-04 >40 >40 >40
SEG 2012 life due to very low corrosion rate
6” SED - Pipeline have significant remaining
13 2012 1.9E-04 >40 >40 >40
SEC life due to very low corrosion rate
8" SEB - Pipeline have significant remaining
14 6.6E-04 >40 >40 >40
SEE 2011 life due to very low corrosion rate
6" SED Pipeline have significant remaining
15 2012 2.0E-04 >40 >40 >40
- SEF life due to very low corrosion rate
24” SEA 2004 Pipeline have significant remaining
17 5.765E-05 >40 >40 >40 life due to very low corrosion rate
- ANGSI 2012
Pipeline will have remaining life of
16” RAA
18 2008 1.34 5 11 7 5 years until the defect reaches
- SEA
80%WT.
Pipeline will have remaining life of
1.09 (ECE) 2.4 6 NA[6] 2.4 years until the defect reaches
18” 2012
80%WT.
19 LWA - &
0.048
SEA 2015 Pipeline have significant remaining
(Matched >40 >40 NA[6]
life due to very low corrosion rate
defect)
8” SEA - Pipeline have significant remaining
22 2012 8.94E-04 >40 >40 >40
LWA life due to very low corrosion rate
Notes:
1) Similar corrosion rate is utilized for both defect depth and length.
2) Estimated remaining life until the corrosion feature with the worst depth reaches 80%WT,
3) Estimated remaining life until corrosion feature with the worst ERF reaches 1 (based on the reduced MAOP)
4) Estimated remaining life until corrosion feature with the worst ERF reaches 1 (based on the design MAOP)
5) Not applicable as worst corrosion feature has exceed 80%WT and ERF>1
6) Not applicable as worst corrosion feature has ERF>1

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 100 of 116


PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

5.3.12 Estimated Repair Year

For pipeline with low remaining life as presented in Table 5-43, the estimated repair year of each
pipeline (for worst corrosion feature to exceed 80%WT depth) is as presented in Table 5-43.

Table 5-43 Estimated Repair Year


CR
PL Latest Distance Depth Orientation Remaining Repair
Id. (mm/ Note
Name ILI Year (m)[1] (%WT)[2] (hrs:min) Life (yr) Year
year)
Pipeline will have
18" remaining life of 2
2 SEB - 2006 677.34 78 6:10 0.21 2 2008 years until the
SEA defect reaches
80%WT.
Pipeline has already
18"
have corrosion
5 SEE - 2015 1,780.08 84 5:16 0.07 0 2010
feature exceeding
SEA
80%WT.
Pipeline will have
16”
remaining life of 5
18 RAA - 2008 10,757.0 35 12:28 1.34 5 2013
years until the defect
SEA
reaches 80%WT.
Pipeline will have
18”
remaining life of 2
19 LWA 2015 34,782.4 62 5:10 1.09 2 2017
years until the defect
- SEA
reaches 80%WT
Notes:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths inclusive of the inspection tool accuracy (as per Table 3-6)

For Pipeline Id. No. 2, 5 and 18, the repair year has already passed and as such, rectification of the
corrosion defects are recommended.

If the corrosion defects for pipelines as presented in have been fully repaired, the remaining life of
the repaired pipeline will be based on the next worst corrosion feature. The next worst corrosion
feature and its corresponding estimated repair year is as presented in Table 5-44.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 101 of 116


PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 5-44 Next Worst Corrosion Feature and Estimated Repair Year
CR
PL Latest Distance Orientation Remaining Life Repair
Id. Depth (%WT)[2] (mm/ Note
Name ILI Year (m)[1] (hrs:min) (yr) Year
year)
Remaining corrosion
18" SEB features have remaining
2 2006 314.21 73 10:33 0.21 6 2012
- SEA life in the range of 13-50
years to reach 80%WT loss
Remaining corrosion features
18" SEE have remaining life greater
5 2015 1,231.86 73 5:43 0.07 19 2034
- SEA than 20 years to reach
80%WT loss
Due to significant corrosion
rate, all corrosion features
16” RAA
18 2008 265.2 33 5:23 1.37 5 2013 have remaining life in the
- SEA
range 5-7 years to reach 80%
WT loss
Due to significant corrosion
rate, all corrosion features
18” LWA
19 2015 20,551.5 58 6:30 1.09 3 2018 have remaining life in the
- SEA
range 2-9 years to reach 80%
WT loss
Notes:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths inclusive of the inspection tool accuracy (as per Table 3-6).

The estimated remaining life and repair year for the worst 25 corrosion features on all 4 pipelines as
in Table 5-43 and Table 5-44 are presented in Appendix S.

5.3.13 Leak and Rupture Evaluation

Additional checks were made on pipeline which has corrosion feature depth greater than 80%. The
failure modes of the defects which have exceeded 80%WT are identified based on the approach as
per PDAM document [Ref. 51]. The 2 parameters checked were to determine the failure modes of
the defect are failure pressure and critical rupture length. As shown in Table 2-2, only Pipeline Id.
No. 5 has defect depth exceeding 80%WT (a total of 4 defects exceeding 80%WT inclusive of
inspection tool accuracy from the 2 ILI). Hence, this section only covers the evaluation conducted on
Pipeline Id. No. 5 and serves as n supplementary assessment to ascertain the estimated remaining
life beyond 80%WT loss.

The failure pressures of the 4 critical defects were calculated based on the Toughness Dependant
and Flow Stress Dependant approaches as specified in PDAM [Ref. 51]. The failure pressures of the
defects at through-wall loss are as illustrated in Figure 5-37 and Figure 5-38.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 102 of 116


PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Figure 5-37 Failure Pressures of Critical Defects (Toughness Dependant) – Pipeline Id. No. 5

Figure 5-38 Failure Pressures of Critical Defects (Flow Stress Dependant) – Pipeline Id. No.5

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 103 of 116


PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

The SWP of the current defects were observed to be below the failure pressure of the defects at full
wall loss. This indicates that the failure mode of the defects (when reaching full wall lass) is via leak.

In addition, the critical rupture length for the defects based on the current operating pressure is
estimated and summarized in Table 5-45.

Table 5-45 Critical Rupture Length for Defect – Pipeline Id. No. 5
Critical Rupture Length
Distance (m)[1] Defect Classification Depth (%)[2] Length (mm)
(mm)
1,778.7 Pitting 82 34
2,439.2 Pitting 80 39
492
3,127.6 Circumferential Slotting 81 19
1,780.1 Pitting 84 32
Notes:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths inclusive of the inspection tool accuracy (as per Table 3-6).

As the measured defect length is lower than the critical rupture length, it can be concluded that the
failure mode of the defects when at full wall loss at 100%WT (assuming the length will not grow
beyond the critical rupture length) is leak. As the severity of leak failure mode is lesser compared to
rupture failure mode, it can be considered that the life criteria of the pipeline can be further extended
beyond 80%WT.

For the purpose of estimating the remaining life beyond 80%WT, the internal corrosion rate based on
the current operating pressure is utilized, as presented in Table 5-46.

Table 5-46 Internal Corrosion Rate Based on ECE for Pipeline No. 5
Pipeline Id. No. Pipeline Corrosion Rate (mm/year)
5 18" SEE – SEA 0.07
The estimated remaining life of the worst defects up to the failure point (full wall loss) based on
constant corrosion rate of 0.07mm/year is as illustrated in Figure 5-39.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 104 of 116


PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Figure 5-39 Remaining Life Estimation Beyond 80%WT Defect Depth

The estimated remaining life of the worst defects at different %WT (for defects exceeding 80% WT in
both ILI runs) is summarized in Table 5-47.

Table 5-47 Defects Estimated Remaining Life at Different Wall Loss Depth
Defect Remaining Life at %WT (years)
ILI Year Depth (%WT)[2]
Location (m)[1] 85% 90% 95% 100%
1,778.7 82 8 22 35 49
2010 2,439.2 80 11 25 38 52
3,127.6 81 14 27 41 55
2015 1,780.1 84 3 16 30 44
Notes:
1. Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2. Defect depths inclusive of the inspection tool accuracy as per Table 3-6.

As per Table 5-47, the remaining life can be significantly extended and this is governed by the
limiting %WT loss criteria (assuming constant corrosion rate of 0.07mm/year). It is the prerogative of
client to decide if the pipeline is able to continue operation beyond the allowable 80%WT as per
ASME B31G [Ref. 46]. Otherwise, the pipeline is recommended to be repaired.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 105 of 116


PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

5.4 Corrosion Defect Assessment (for pipelines without ILI)

This section presents the results of the corrosion defect assessments for Seligi & PM8 pipelines
without ILI.

5.4.1 Review of Underwater Inspection

The underwater inspection was performed on the pipelines on various occasions. The pipeline and
riser were reviewed to identify any anomalies. Several metal objects were identified to be in contact
with the pipeline and riser. The summary of metal objects on the pipeline is summarized in Table 5-
48. In general, no visible damages were reported on the pipeline at all location with metallic debris.
Further details on the underwater inspection findings are presented in Appendix C.

Table 5-48 List of Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser


Metal
Inspection
Id. # Pipeline Name Inspection Vendor Objects Ref.
Year
No.
3 12” SEC – SEA NA
4 12” SED – SEA NA
7 12” SEF – SED NA
10” SEH - Subsea Hot Tap
8 2015 Subsea Explore Services 2 6
(pipeline SEB-SEA)
6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline
16 2015 Subsea Explore Services 2 5
SEA-SEB) - SEH
12” SRA - Subsea Lateral
21 2015 Subsea Explore Services 5 8
Tie-In (pipeline LWA-SEA)
8” Lateral Tie-in RAA - LWA
23 2015 Subsea Explore Services 0 14
(pipeline RAA-LWA)
6” Subsea Lateral Tie-In
24 2015 Subsea Explore Services 1 9
(pipeline RAA-LWA) - SRA
6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline
25 2015 Subsea Explore Services 1 13
SEA-RAA) - RAB

5.4.2 Cathodic Protection System

Cathodic Protection (CP) survey was conducted along the riser and pipeline, where CP
measurements were taken on riser bend and clamps, and anodes on pipeline. The measured CP
readings on all pipelines were concluded to be acceptable (pipeline is cathodically protected if the
CP is -850mV to -1049mv). However, there were anodes at various locations with significant
depletion of more than 75%, and these were reported as anomalies during the inspection. Regular
monitoring and surveying is recommended to ensure continued protection especially at the locations
which shows significant depletion.

The CP readings and anodes with depletion >75% are summarized in Table 5-49

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 106 of 116


PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 5-49 CP Readings and Estimated Depletion >75% at Pipeline


CP reading (mV) No of anodes
Id. Inspection Inspection
Pipeline Name with depletion Ref.
# Year Vendor
min max >75%

3 12” SEC – SEA NA


4 12” SED – SEA NA
7 12” SEF – SED NA
10” SEH - Subsea
Ikon Subsea
8 Hot Tap (pipeline 2015 -932 -1025 4 79
Technology
SEB-SEA)
6” Subsea Hot
Ikon Subsea
16 Tap (pipeline 2015 -928 -1019 1 83
Technology
SEA-SEB) - SEH
12” SRA - Subsea
Lateral Tie-In Ikon Subsea
21 2015 -998 -1050 1 86
(pipeline LWA- Technology
SEA)
8” Lateral Tie-in
RAA - LWA Ikon Subsea
23 2015 -1005 -1028 0 88
(pipeline RAA- Technology
LWA)
6” Subsea Lateral
Ikon Subsea
24 Tie-In (pipeline 2015 -908 -1021 1 89
Technology
RAA-LWA) - SRA
6” Subsea Hot
Ikon Subsea
25 Tap (pipeline 2015 -943 -1031 4 90
Technology
SEA-RAA) - RAB

KP locations of anodes with significant depletion are presented in Table 5-50.

Table 5-50 KP Location of Anodes with depletion >75%

Id. # Pipeline Name KP

10” SEH - Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline


8 0.015,0.039,0.051,0.532
SEB-SEA)

6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline SEA-


16 1.772
SEB) - SHE

12” SRA - Subsea Lateral Tie-In


21 0.193
(pipeline LWA-SEA)

6” Subsea Lateral Tie-In (pipeline


24 0.029
RAA-LWA) - SRA

6” Subsea Hot Tap (pipeline SEA-


25 0.016,0.162,0.919,0.949
RAA) - RAB

Further details on the CP inspection findings are presented in Appendix D.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 107 of 116


PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

5.4.3 Wall Loss Estimation – pipelines without ILI

Due to no ILI data, wall loss estimation was performed on Pipeline Id No. 8 and 21. The estimation of
wall loss of the pipeline as of present date is conservatively calculated based on the ILI findings of
the connected line, as per assumptions described in Section 4.4.3. Based on the ILI survey of the
connecting line, the estimated corrosion rate and wall loss are summarized in Table 5-51.

Table 5-51 Estimated Corrosion Rate and Wall Loss for No ILI Line
Connecting ILI Worst Estimated wall
Id. CR
Pipeline Pipeline Id Defect Depth loss for no ILI
# (mm/year)[1]
No. (%WT) line (%WT)

10” SEH - Subsea Hot Tap 63 (ILI Year


8 2 0.50 56
(pipeline SEB-SEA) 2006)
12” SRA - Subsea Lateral Tie-In 42 (ILI Year
21 19 0.29 45
(pipeline LWA-SEA) 2015)
Note:
1) Corrosion rate is calculated based on the depth of the worst defect on the connecting line as per ILI, and assuming constant
growth per year starting from the installation year of the pipeline.

5.4.4 Estimated Remaining Life of Pipeline – pipelines without ILI

Based on the estimated wall loss of the pipeline as to present year 2016 (as shown in Table 4.20),
the remaining life of the pipeline is calculated using the corrosion rate as per Table 3.3. The life is
calculated until the total wall loss of the pipeline is 80%WT. The remaining life of the pipeline Id no. 8
and 21 is summarized in Table 5-52.

Table 5-52 Remaining Life of Pipeline


ECE CR Remaining
Id. # Pipeline Repair Year Note
(mm/year) Life (years)
10” SEH - Subsea
Pipeline will have remaining life of 4 years
8 Hot Tap (pipeline 0.80 4 2020
until the defect reaches 80%WT.
SEB-SEA)
12” SRA - Subsea
Pipeline will have remaining life of 10
21 Lateral Tie-In 0.34 10 2026
years until the defect reaches 80%WT.
(pipeline LWA-SEA)

Based on the assessment, the pipeline is shown to have remaining life of 4 and 10 years (for
Pipelines Id. No. 8 and 21 respectively) if the worst defects grow with a constant rate per year.

As the calculation is solely based on the estimated wall loss using the pipelines connecting line ILI
data as reference, the estimation may not be accurate. Hence, ILI run is required on these lines to
ascertain the maximum wall loss on the pipelines.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 108 of 116


PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

5.5 Minimum Required Wall Thickness and Remaining Life Estimation (based on De-
rated Pressure)

For pipelines with estimated low remaining life (pipeline Id. No. 2, 5, 8, 18, 19, and 21), additional
assessments were carried out to identify the minimum required wall thickness based on de-rated
pressure. The minimum required wall thickness is computed using DNV-OS-F101, ASME B31.4 and
API RP 1111 codes for pressure containment/internal overpressure compliance.

Based on the current worst wall loss, the remaining wall thickness is calculated and the remaining
life is then estimated using the ECE corrosion rate. The remaining life in this assessment is defined
as the duration required until current wall thickness is reduced to the specified minimum required
wall thickness.

The minimum required wall thickness and the estimated remaining life are as presented in Table 5-
53. Results show that even with pressure de-rating, the remaining lives for most lines are considered
as low.

The estimated remaining life and repair year for the worst 25 corrosion features on pipelines Id. No.
2,5,18 and 19 are presented in Appendix U

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 109 of 116


PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Table 5-53 Corrosion Defect Assessment Results (for pipelines with ILI) – based on De-rated Pressure
Pipeline Derated Worst Worst Worst Minimum Required Wall Remaining
Design Worst Defect Thickness (mm)
[3] Corrosion
Pipeline Original Design Defect Defect Defect Wall Life from Repair
Id. # Pressure ILI Year Remaining Rate
Name WT Pressure Location Nominal Loss as per last IP Year
(MPa) [1] [2] WT (mm) DNV-OS- ASME API RP (mm/year) [4]
(mm) (MPa) (m) WT (mm) ILI (%) (Years)
F101 B31.4 1111
18" SEB - 28.5,
2 23.93 4.1 2006 677.34 19.1 78 4.20 2.94 3.15 3.08 0.21 5 2011
SEA 19.1
18" SEE - 25.4,
5 23.93 4.1 2015 1,780.08 19.1 84 3.06 2.78 2.9 2.94 0.07 2 2017
SEA 19.1
10” SEH -
Subsea
[6] [5]
8 Hot Tap 14.3 22.3 4.1 2016 NA 14.3 56 6.29 1.85 1.74 1.75 0.8 6 2022
(pipeline
SEB-SEA)
16” RAA -
18 15.9 17.9 4.3 2008 10,757.00 15.9 35 10.34 3.3 3.37 3.3 1.34 5 2013
SEA
18” LWA - 19.1,
19 17.9 4.3 2015 34,782.40 14.3 62 5.43 2.93 3.05 3.08 1.09 2 2017
SEA 14.3
12” SRA -
Subsea
Lateral [6] [5]
21 14.3, 9.5 17.9 4.3 2016 NA 9.5 45 5.23 2.25 2.16 2.18 0.34 9 2025
Tie-In
(pipeline
LWA-SEA)
Notes:
1. De-rated pressure as provided by EnQuest
2. Wall loss inclusive of the inspection tool accuracy as per Table 3-6.
3. Minimum required wall thickness is based on pressure containment/internal overpressure case
4. Duration until the wall thickness at current wall loss equal to the minimum required thickness (taken from the highest value).
5. NA=not available. Line is without ILI
6. For lines with no ILI, worst defect was conservatively estimated up to present year (2016).

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 110 of 116


PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

6.0 References
1. Subsea Explore Services (M) Sdn Bhd, ROV Pipeline Inspection Final Report, Pipeline PL-18-
SEA-TAP-CRUDE, Doc No. SES/FR/EQP/412/2015/PL-18-SEA-TAP-CRUDE, Rev 0 (Source:
EnQuest).
2. Subsea Explore Services (M) Sdn Bhd, ROV Pipeline Inspection Final Report, Pipeline PL-18-
SEB-SEA-FWS, Doc No. SES/FR/EQP/412/2015/PL-18-SEB-SEA-FWS, Rev 0 (Source:
EnQuest).
3. Subsea Explore Services (M) Sdn Bhd, ROV Pipeline Inspection Final Report, Pipeline PL-18-
SEE-SEA-FWS, Doc No. SES/FR/EQP/412/2015/PL-18-SEE-SEA-FWS, Rev 0 (Source:
EnQuest).
4. Subsea Explore Services (M) Sdn Bhd, ROV Pipeline Inspection Final Report, Pipeline PL-10-
SEA-SEB-GAS, Doc No. SES/FR/EQP/412/2015/PL-10-SEA-SEB-GAS, Rev 0 (Source:
EnQuest).
5. Subsea Explore Services (M) Sdn Bhd, ROV Pipeline Inspection Final Report, Pipeline PL-6-
HTAP-SEH-GAS, Doc No. SES/FR/EQP/412/2015/PL-6-HTAP-SEH-GAS, Rev 0 (Source:
EnQuest).
6. Subsea Explore Services (M) Sdn Bhd, ROV Pipeline Inspection Final Report, Pipeline PL-10-
SEH-HTAP-FWS, Doc No. SES/FR/EQP/412/2015/PL-10-SEH-HTAP-FWS, Rev 0 (Source:
EnQuest).
7. Subsea Explore Services (M) Sdn Bhd, ROV Pipeline Inspection Final Report, Pipeline PL-18-
LWA-SEA-FWS, Doc No. SES/FR/EQP/412/2015/PL-18-LWA-SEA-FWS, Rev 0 (Source:
EnQuest).
8. Subsea Explore Services (M) Sdn Bhd, ROV Pipeline Inspection Final Report, Pipeline PL-12-
SRA-TIN-FWS, Doc No. SES/FR/EQP/412/2015/PL-12-SRA-TIN-FWS, Rev 0 (Source:
EnQuest).
9. Subsea Explore Services (M) Sdn Bhd, ROV Pipeline Inspection Final Report, Pipeline PL-6-
SRA-TIN-GAS, Doc No. SES/FR/EQP/412/2015/PL-6-SRA-TIN-GAS, Rev 0 (Source:
EnQuest).
10. Subsea Explore Services (M) Sdn Bhd, ROV Pipeline Inspection Final Report, Pipeline PL-8-
SEA-RAA-LWA-GAS, Doc No. SES/FR/EQP/412/2015/PL-8-SEA-RAA-LWA-GAS, Rev 0
(Source: EnQuest).
11. Subsea Explore Services (M) Sdn Bhd, ROV Pipeline Inspection Final Report, Pipeline PL-16-
RAA-SEA-FWS, Doc No. SES/FR/EQP/412/2015/PL-16-RAA-SEA-FWS, Rev 0 (Source:
EnQuest).
12. Subsea Explore Services (M) Sdn Bhd, ROV Pipeline Inspection Final Report, Pipeline PL-8-
RAB-HTAP-FWS, Doc No. SES/FR/EQP/412/2015/PL-8-RAB-HTAP-FWS, Rev 0 (Source:
EnQuest).
13. Subsea Explore Services (M) Sdn Bhd, ROV Pipeline Inspection Final Report, Pipeline PL-6-
RAB-HTAP-GAS, Doc No. SES/FR/EQP/412/2015/PL-6-RAB-HTAP-GAS, Rev 0 (Source:
EnQuest).
14. Subsea Explore Services (M) Sdn Bhd, ROV Pipeline Inspection Final Report, Pipeline PL-8-
TIN-RAA-GAS, Doc No. SES/FR/EQP/412/2015/PL-8-TIN-RAA-GAS, Rev 0 (Source:
EnQuest).
15. Subsea Explore Services (M) Sdn Bhd, ROV Pipeline Inspection Final Report, Pipeline PL-6-
SED-SEC-GAS, Doc No. SES/FR/EQP/412/2015/PL-6-SED-SEC-GAS, Rev 0 (Source:

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 111 of 116


PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

EnQuest).
16. Subsea Explore Services (M) Sdn Bhd, ROV Pipeline Inspection Final Report, Pipeline PL-10-
SEA-SED-GAS, Doc No. SES/FR/EQP/412/2015/PL-10-SEA-SED-GAS, Rev 0 (Source:
EnQuest).
17. Pageo Geoscience Sdn Bhd, Final Report Pipeline Surveillance Survey Volume I – Seligi Field,
Doc No. PG13-EQ-SS-SELIGI_PM8-01, Rev.1 (Source: EnQuest).
18. Pageo Geoscience Sdn Bhd, Final Report Pipeline Surveillance Survey Volume II – PM8 Field,
Doc No. PG13-EQ-SS-SELIGI_PM8-02, Rev.1 (Source: EnQuest).
19. Rosen Inspection, Final Inline Inspection Report, 18” Crude Oil Pipeline Seligi A to Tapis Pump,
Rev. 0, dated 4-Feb 2014. (Source: EnQuest).
20. Romstar Sdn Bhd, MFL Survey Final Inspection Report, 18” Seligi A (SeA) – Tapis Pump (TaP)
Crude Oil Pipeline, Rev. 0, dated 15-Dec 2008. (Source: EnQuest).
21. Rosen Inspection, Final Inline Inspection Report, 18” x 5.1 km Multiphase (FWS) Pipeline Seligi
B to Seligi A, Rev. 0, dated 30-Aug 2006. (Source: EnQuest).
22. Romstar Sdn Bhd, MFL Inspection Final Report, 18”x 7.64 km Seligi-E to Seligi-A FWS
Pipeline, Rev. 1, dated 17-Feb 2016. (Source: EnQuest).
23. PII Pipeline Solutions, 18 inch Crude Oil Pipeline SEE - Seligi E to SEA - Seligi A, dated 4-May
2010. (Source: EnQuest).
24. Romstar Sdn Bhd, MFL Inspection Final Report, 12” x 4.8km SEG – SEA Multiphase Pipeline,
Rev. 0, dated 21-Nov 2013. (Source: EnQuest).
25. Rosen Inspection, Final Inline Inspection Report, 12” x 5.0 km Multiphase (FWS) Pipeline Seligi-
G to Seligi-A, Rev. 0, dated 30-March 2006. (Source: EnQuest).
26. PII Pipeline Solutions, 10 inch Natural Gas Pipeline SEA - Seligi A to SEB - Seligi B, dated 4-
May 2006. (Source: EnQuest).
27. Romstar Sdn Bhd, MFL Inspection Final Report, 10” x 3.55 km Seligi-A (SEA) to Seligi-D (SED)
Gas Lift Pipeline, Rev. 1, dated 4-Feb 2016. (Source: EnQuest).
28. Rosen Inspection, Final Inline Inspection Report, 06” Gas Pipeline Seligi A to Seligi G, Rev. 0,
dated 3-Apr 2012. (Source: EnQuest).
29. Rosen Inspection, Inspection Survey Report, 06” Gas Pipeline Seligi A to Seligi G, Rev. B,
dated 11-March 1996. (Source: EnQuest).
30. Rosen Inspection, Final Inline Inspection Report, 06” Gas Pipeline Seligi D to Seligi C, Rev. 0,
dated 20-July 2012. (Source: EnQuest).
31. Rosen Inspection, Final Inline Inspection Report, 08” Gas Pipeline Seligi B to Seligi E, Rev. 0,
dated 20-Jan 2011. (Source: EnQuest).
32. Rosen Inspection, Inspection Survey Report, 08” Gas Pipeline Seligi B to Seligi E, Rev. 2, dated
16-Oct 1998. (Source: EnQuest).
33. Rosen Inspection, Final Inline Inspection Report, 06” Gas Pipeline Seligi D to Seligi F, Rev. 0,
dated 23-Apr 2012. (Source: EnQuest).
34. Rosen Inspection, Final Inline Inspection Report, 24” Gas Pipeline Seligi A-V882 to Angsi-
R2930, Rev. 0, dated 30-Nov 2012. (Source: EnQuest).
35. PII Pipeline Solutions, 24 inch Natural Gas Pipeline Seligi A - SEA to ANDR - A, dated 24-Sept
2004. (Source: EnQuest).
36. Rosen Inspection, Final Inline Inspection Report, 16” x 32.0 km FWS Pipeline Raya-A to Seligi-
A, Rev. 0, dated 14-Nov 2008. (Source: EnQuest).
37. Romstar Sdn Bhd, MFL Inspection Final Report, 18”x 45.35 km Lawang-A (LWA) to Seligi-A
(SEA) FWS Pipeline, Rev. 1, dated 15-Feb 2016. (Source: EnQuest).

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 112 of 116


PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

38. Romstar Sdn Bhd, MFL Inspection Final Report, 18”x 45.35km Lawang-A - Seligi-A FWS
Pipeline, Rev. 0, dated 18-June 2012. (Source: EnQuest).
39. Rosen Inspection, Final Inline Inspection Report, 08” Gas Pipeline Seligi A to Lawang A, Rev. 0,
dated 20-Jan 2012. (Source: EnQuest).
40. Excel File, PM8E Pipeline Pressure Data (PI Tag). (Source: EnQuest)
41. IC-FINESSE Software Technical / Help Manual, Wood Group Kenny
42. RSTRENG Website, www.rstreng.com
43. DNV-RP-F101, Corroded Pipelines, 2010.
44. DNV-RP-F105, Free Spanning Pipelines, 2006.
45. DNV-OS-F101, Submarine Pipeline System, 2013.
46. ASME B31G, Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines, 1991.
47. ASME B31.4, Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquids and Slurries, 2012
48. ASME B31.8, Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems, 2012
49. FATFREE User Manual, V12.0-03.
50. Wood Group Kenny Technical Note, Corrosion Rate Assessment for FFP Study.
51. The Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual (PDAM), A Report to the PDAM Joint Industry Project
by Andrew Cosham and Phil Hopkins, May 2003.
52. API Specification 5L, Specification for Line Pipe, Forty-Fifth Edition, December 2012.
53. EMEPMI, DIM 1-1, Common Requirements, 2003.
54. Barmada McDermott Sdn Bhd, Pipeline Route Alignment Sheet, SEA - TAP DN450 Crude
Pipeline Replacement Project, Drawing No. 45-86-502. (Source: EnQuest).
55. Esso Production Malaysia Inc., Schematic Diagram of 450mm (18”) N.S. Crude Pipeline from
Seligi B to Seligi A, Drawing No. SEB-03-51-001. (Source: EnQuest).
56. Intecsea Sdn Bhd, Pipeline Route Alignment Sheet, DN300 FWS Pipeline from Seligi C to Seligi
A, Drawing No. 51-86-502. (Source: EnQuest).
57. Intecsea Sdn Bhd, Pipeline Route Alignment Sheet, DN300 FWS Pipeline from Seligi D to Seligi
A, Drawing No. 52-86-502. (Source: EnQuest).
58. Esso Production Malaysia Inc., Schematic Diagram 450mm Production Pipeline from Seligi E to
Seligi A (P), Drawing No. SEA-22-10-01. (Source: EnQuest).
59. Esso Production Malaysia Inc., Schematic Diagram 300mm Crude Pipeline SEG to SEA
(Production), Drawing No. SEA-21-5549-901(G). (Source: EnQuest).
60. Intecsea Sdn Bhd, Pipeline Route Alignment Sheet, DN300 FWS Pipeline from Seligi F to Seligi
D, Drawing No. 54-86-502. (Source: EnQuest).
61. Technip Consultant (M) Sdn Bhd, 10” FWS Pipeline from Seligi H to Subsea Hot Tap Pipeline
Alignment Sheet, Drawing No. 56-86-500. (Source: EnQuest).
62. Esso Production Malaysia Inc., Schematic Diagram of 250mm (10.75in) Gas Injection/Lift
Pipeline from SEA (C) Platform to SEB Platform, Drawing No. SEB-04-51-001. (Source:
EnQuest).
63. Esso Production Malaysia Inc., Schematic Diagram of 250mm (10.75in) Gas Injection/Lift
Pipeline from SEA (P) Platform to SED Platform, Drawing No. SED-04-51-001. (Source:
EnQuest).
64. Esso Production Malaysia Inc., Schematic Diagram 150mm Gas Pipeline SEA (Compression) to
SEG (Production), Drawing No. SEG-04-4955-901(G). (Source: EnQuest).
65. Technip Geoproduction Malaysia, 168.3 Seligi-D to Seligi-C Gas lift Pipeline Alignment Sheet,
Drawing No. SEC-04-16-02. (Source: EnQuest).
66. Esso Production Malaysia Inc., Schematic Diagram 200mm Gas Lift / Injection Pipeline from

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 113 of 116


PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Seligi B to Seligi E, Drawing No. SEE-03-10-01. (Source: EnQuest).


67. Technip Consultant (M) Sdn Bhd, 6” Gas Lift Pipeline from Subsea Hot Tap to Seligi H Pipeline
Alignment Sheet, Drawing No. 49-86-510. (Source: EnQuest).
68. TL Offshore Sdn Bhd, 24 inch Pipeline from Seligi A (Comp.) to ANDR-A Pipeline Alignment,
Drawing No. 0004. (Source: EnQuest).
69. Technip Consultant (M) Sdn Bhd, Pipeline Route Alignment Sheet, RAA - SEA DN400 FWS
Pipeline Replacement Project, Drawing No. 26-86-502. (Source: EnQuest).
70. Technip Consultant (M) Sdn Bhd, 18” FWS Pipeline from Lawang A to Seligi A (Prod.) Pipeline
Alignment Sheet, Drawing No. 36-86-500. (Source: EnQuest).
71. Technip Consultant (M) Sdn Bhd, 12” FWS Pipeline from Serudon A to Subsea Lateral Tie-in
Pipeline Alignment Sheet, Drawing No. 69-86-500. (Source: EnQuest).
72. Technip Consultant (M) Sdn Bhd, 8” Gas Lift Pipeline from Raya A to Subsea Lateral Tie-in to
Lawang A Pipeline Alignment Sheet, Drawing No. 26-86-500. (Source: EnQuest).
73. Technip Consultant (M) Sdn Bhd, 8” Gas Lift Pipeline from Raya A Subsea Lateral Tie-in to
Lawang A, 6” Gas Lift Pipeline from Subsea Lateral tie-in to Serudon A Pipeline Schematic
Diagram, Drawing No. 26-86-001. (Source: EnQuest).
74. Technip Consultant (M) Sdn Bhd, 6” Gas Lift Pipeline from Subsea Hot Tap to Raya B Pipeline
Alignment Sheet, Drawing No. 49-86-500. (Source: EnQuest).
75. Ikon Subsea Technology Sdn Bhd, Final Report Cathodic Protection Report, 18” Pipeline from
Seligi-A to TAP (Crude), Rev. 0, dated 10-Dec 2015. (Source: EnQuest).
76. Ikon Subsea Technology Sdn Bhd, Final Report Cathodic Protection Report, 18” FWS Pipeline
from Seligi-B to Seligi-A (Crude), Rev. 0, dated 13-Oct 2015. (Source: EnQuest).
77. Ikon Subsea Technology Sdn Bhd, Final Report Cathodic Protection Report, 18” FWS Pipeline
from Seligi-B to Seligi-A (Crude), Rev. 0, dated 13-Oct 2015. (Source: EnQuest).
78. Ikon Subsea Technology Sdn Bhd, Final Report Cathodic Protection Report, 18” FWS Pipeline
from Seligi-E to Seligi-A (Crude), Rev. 2, dated 13-Oct 2015. (Source: EnQuest).
79. Ikon Subsea Technology Sdn Bhd, Final Report Cathodic Protection Report, 10” FWS Pipeline
from Seligi-H to Subsea Hot Tap, Rev. 0, dated 13-Oct 2015. (Source: EnQuest).
80. Ikon Subsea Technology Sdn Bhd, Final Report Cathodic Protection Report, 10” Pipeline from
Seligi-A to Seligi-B (Gas), Rev. 0, dated 13-Oct 2015. (Source: EnQuest).
81. Ikon Subsea Technology Sdn Bhd, Final Report Cathodic Protection Report, 10” Pipeline from
Seligi-A to Seligi-D (Gas), Rev. 0, dated 29-Dec 2015. (Source: EnQuest).
82. Ikon Subsea Technology Sdn Bhd, Final Report Cathodic Protection Report, 6” Pipeline from
Seligi-D to Seligi-C (Gas), Rev. 0, dated 29-Dec 2015. (Source: EnQuest).
83. Ikon Subsea Technology Sdn Bhd, Final Report Cathodic Protection Report, 6” Pipeline from
Subsea Hot Tap to Seligi-H (Gas), Rev. 0, dated 13-Oct 2015. (Source: EnQuest).
84. Ikon Subsea Technology Sdn Bhd, Final Report Cathodic Protection Report, 16” FWS Pipeline
from Raya-A to Seligi-A, Rev. 0, dated 22-Dec 2015. (Source: EnQuest).
85. Ikon Subsea Technology Sdn Bhd, Final Report Cathodic Protection Report, 18” FWS Pipeline
from Lawang-A to Seligi-A (Crude), Rev. 0, dated 15-Oct 2015. (Source: EnQuest).
86. Ikon Subsea Technology Sdn Bhd, Final Report Cathodic Protection Report, 12” FWS Pipeline
from Serudon-A to Subsea Lateral Tie-In (Gas), Rev. 0, dated 10-Dec 2015. (Source: EnQuest).
87. Ikon Subsea Technology Sdn Bhd, Final Report Cathodic Protection Report, 8” Pipeline from
Seligi-A to Lawang-A (Gas), Rev. 0, dated 15-Dec 2015. (Source: EnQuest).
88. Ikon Subsea Technology Sdn Bhd, Final Report Cathodic Protection Report, 8” Pipeline from
Tie-in to Raya-A (Gas), Rev. 0, dated 29-Dec 2015. (Source: EnQuest).

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 114 of 116


PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

89. Ikon Subsea Technology Sdn Bhd, Final Report Cathodic Protection Report, 6” Pipeline from
Serudon-A to Tie-in (Gas), Rev. 0, dated 15-Dec 2015. (Source: EnQuest).
90. Ikon Subsea Technology Sdn Bhd, Final Report Cathodic Protection Report, 6” FWS Pipeline
from Raya-B to Hot Tap, Rev. 0, dated 29-Dec 2015. (Source: EnQuest).
91. Ranhill Worley Parsons Sdn Bhd, Seligi and Semangkok Pipeline Replacement Project (B/F),
Pipeline System Design Basis, Document No. 4215011-PL-RPT-0001.
92. EMEPMI 2006 ROV External Pipeline Inspections Final Report, Volume 17, 18-inch SEA-TAP
Gas Pipeline Inspection, Rev. 0, dated Feb 2007. (Source: EnQuest).
93. EMEPMI 2003 ROV External Pipeline and Jacket Inspections Final Report, Volume 14, 18-inch
SEB-SEA Crude Pipeline Inspection, Rev. 0, dated Nov 2003. (Source: EnQuest).
94. EMEPMI 2006 ROV External Pipeline Inspections-Phase 3 Final Report, Volume 6, 24-inch
SEA-ANDR-A Gas Pipeline Inspection, Rev. 0, dated Dec 2007. (Source: EnQuest).
95. EMEPMI 2003 ROV External Pipeline and Jacket Inspections Final Report, Volume 11, 18-inch
LWA-SEA Crude Pipeline Inspection, Rev. 0, Nov 2003. (Source: 2003).
96. Email from Rio Nardo bin Yunardo (EnQuest) to Paul Gautier (WGK), dated 8th January 2016
at 3.56PM, Email title “RE: Additional Information Request”.
97. Rosen Product Brochure, ROCORR MFL-A BIDI Service.
98. Field Preliminary Report 2011, 6” SeA-C – SeG GL Pipeline Inspection by Offshore Works
dated 29 October 2011. (Source: Enquest)
99. Provision of Underwater Inspection and Maintenance Services, Field Preliminary Report,
Pipeline PL-6-SED-SEF-GAS Seligi Field by Offshore Subsea Works (OSS), Rev. 0. (Source:
Enquest)
100. External Pipeline Inspection Work scope & Summary Report, 8 inch SEB SEE (2010), dated 4-
Oct-2010, Excel File – ‘8 in seb – see (2010).xls. (Source :Enquest)
101. External Pipeline Inspection Work scope & Summary Report, 12 inch SEG SEA (2010), dated
13-Aug-2010, Excel File – ‘12 in seg – seap (2010).xls. (Source :Enquest)
102. Rosen Inspection, Final Inline Inspection Report, 10” Gas Pipeline Seligi A to Seligi D, Rev. 0,
dated 22-August 2011. (Source: EnQuest).
103. PM8 E Daily Monitoring Excel Report, Rev 14, dated 10 December 2015. (Source: EnQuest).
104. PM8 E Daily Monitoring Excel Report, Rev 15, dated 31 December 2015. (Source: EnQuest).
105. Seligi & PM6 Pipeline Excel Data (extracted from OSIsoft PI system), Year 2014 to Year 2015.
(Source: EnQuest).
106. MECAS Corrosion Impact Assessment Report, Version 1, dated 20 May 2015
107. Corrosion Inhibitor Treatment for Pipelines Monitoring Excel Report
108. Pigging & Corrosion Inhibitor Batch Program Monitoring Excel Report
109. MECAS Program Administration Manual for EnQuest Seligi Field, Rev. 1, dated January 2015
110. MECAS Monthly Service Report November 2015 – Integrated Oil Field Chemical Applications &
Services for Seligi/PM8 Field
111. Design Basis Memorandum (RAYA-A Field), Rev. 0, dated 28 March 1995.
112. Design Basis Memorandum Seligi C Platform Facilities, Pipelines and Associated Works, Rev.
0, dated May 1990.
113. Design Basis Memorandum Seligi D Platform Facilities, Pipelines and Associated Works, Rev.
1, dated March 1987.
114. Design Basis Memorandum Seligi E Platform Facilities, Pipelines and Associated Works, Rev.
0, dated May 1990.

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 115 of 116


PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

115. Design Basis Memorandum Seligi F Platform Facilities, Pipelines and Associated Works, Rev.
0, dated Jan 1992.
116. Design Basis Memorandum Seligi B Platform Facilities, Pipelines and Associated Works, Rev.
1, dated March 1987.
117. Design Basis Memorandum Seligi G Platform Facilities, Pipelines and Associated Works, Rev.
0, dated August 1987.
118. Design Basis Memorandum Seligi A Central Processing Facilities, Pipelines and Associated
Works, Rev. 1, dated February 1986.
119. Design Basis Memorandum Raya A to Seligi A Pipeline Replacement Project, Rev. 0, dated
June 2004.
120. Design Basis Memorandum SEA – BEC Gas Sales Pipeline, Rev. 0, dated December 1989
121. Design Basis Memorandum Seligi A to Tapis Pump Partial Pipeline Replacement and
Abandonment Project, Rev. 0, dated June 2006.
122. API RP 1111, Design, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of Offshore Hydrocarbon
Pipelines (Limit State Design), Fourth Edition (2009).

-o0o-

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page 116 of 116


PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Appendix A Internal Pressure Plots

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page A-1
1) PIPELINE ID. NO. 1

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 1

2) PIPELINE ID. NO. 2

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 2


3) PIPELINE ID. NO. 3

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 3

4) PIPELINE ID. NO. 4

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 4


5) PIPELINE ID. NO. 5

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 5

6) PIPELINE ID. NO. 6

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 6


7) PIPELINE ID. NO. 7

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 7

8) PIPELINE ID. NO. 8

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 8


9) PIPELINE ID. NO. 10

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 10

10) PIPELINE ID. NO. 11

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 11


11) PIPELINE ID. NO. 12

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 12

12) PIPELINE ID. NO. 13

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 13


13) PIPELINE ID. NO. 14

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 14

14) PIPELINE ID. NO. 15

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 15


15) PIPELINE ID. NO. 16

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 16

16) PIPELINE ID. NO. 17

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 17


17) PIPELINE ID. NO. 18

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 18

18) PIPELINE ID. NO. 19

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 19


19) PIPELINE ID. NO. 21

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 21

20) PIPELINE ID. NO. 22

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 22


21) PIPELINE ID. NO. 23

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 23

22) PIPELINE ID. NO. 24

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 24


23) PIPELINE ID. NO. 25

Pressure Profile for Pipeline Id. No. 25


PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Appendix B Details of Manufacturing Defects

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page B-1
1. PIPELINE ID. NO. 1
1.1 Based on 2008 ILI run by ROMSTAR
Table 1-1 Manufacturing Defects at 18” SEA-TAP
Depth Length Width Orientation
Distance (m) Surface
(%WT) (mm) (mm) (hrs:mins)
26,353.92 NA 14 14 19 8:58
28,214.86 NA 10 30 26 10:58
28,215.64 NA 11 33 26 10:58
28,216.57 NA 13 30 26 10:58
28,217.42 NA 11 17 26 10:58
28,218.95 NA 10 15 26 10:58
28,219.87 NA 11 28 26 11:00
28,221.41 NA 14 35 26 11:00
28,222.22 NA 16 23 26 11:00
28,576.43 NA 19 29 141 2:46
28,917.27 NA 14 32 51 2:25
29,276.56 NA 11 31 51 2:20
29,741.50 NA 11 12 96 3:14
30,398.57 NA 12 10 64 2:22
31,684.63 NA 13 11 103 3:12
31,687.92 NA 13 23 83 3:22
31,961.64 NA 13 25 77 2:46
32,574.57 NA 14 32 160 3:15
32,575.46 NA 13 23 154 3:14
32,805.50 NA 32 22 141 2:46
33,586.93 NA 11 27 83 3:15
33,915.72 NA 25 23 51 5:03
34,032.56 NA 12 10 71 3:17
34,070.22 NA 22 22 96 2:42
37,658.46 NA 28 24 103 2:42
41,315.73 NA 19 22 128 3:12
41,378.01 NA 16 14 135 2:34
41,387.00 NA 13 8 147 3:12
41,827.61 NA 16 33 147 3:12
41,828.18 NA 13 13 83 2:20
43,456.74 NA 12 24 71 3:06
46,878.99 NA 15 11 77 2:34
48,248.19 NA 16 34 77 3:17
48,566.19 NA 11 23 199 3:12
48,728.56 NA 14 13 71 2:47
49,274.26 NA 11 29 51 3:14

Page 1 of 1
Depth Length Width Orientation
Distance (m) Surface
(%WT) (mm) (mm) (hrs:mins)
50,248.48 NA 11 14 71 2:55

1.2 Based on 2014 ILI run by ROSEN


No manufacturing defects detected during ILI.

2. PIPELINE ID. NO. 5


2.1 Based on 2010 ILI run by TPS
Table 2-1 Manufacturing Defects at 10” SEA-SEB
Depth Length Width Orientation
Distance (m) Surface
(%WT) (mm) (mm) (hrs:mins)
7,594.5 Internal 9 112 1096 2:30

2.2 Based on 2015 ILI run by ROMSTAR


Table 2-2 Manufacturing Defects at 10” SEA-SEB
Depth Length Width Orientation
Distance (m) Surface
(%WT) (mm) (mm) (hrs:mins)
7,735.5 Internal 10 71 31 7:19

3. PIPELINE ID. NO. 6


3.1 Based on 2006 ILI run by ROSEN
Table 3-1 Manufacturing Defects at 12” SEG-SEA
Depth Length Width Orientation
Distance (m) Surface
(%WT) (mm) (mm) (hrs:mins)
440.41 Internal 18 11 34 2:36
1,276.70 Internal 10 11 13 7:58
2,990.88 External 10 14 14 9:19

3.2 Based on 2013 ILI run by ROMSTAR


Table 3-2 Manufacturing Defects at 12” SEG-SEA
Depth Length Width Orientation
Distance (m) Surface
(%WT) (mm) (mm) (hrs:mins)
295.19 Internal 10 32 91 8:31
1,777.80 Internal 20 50 46 2:20
2,886.78 Internal 10 38 77 11:59
3,084.09 Internal 10 43 90 5:44
3,527.60 Internal 10 62 62 0:12
3,849.48 Internal 10 31 82 11:55
4,427.68 Internal 10 34 80 3:23

Page 2 of 2
4. PIPELINE ID. NO. 10
4.1 Based on 2006 ILI run by PII
Table 4-1 Manufacturing Defects at 10” SEA-SEB
Depth Length Width Orientation
Distance (m) Surface
(%WT) (mm) (mm) (hrs:mins)
2,611.6 Internal 30 13 21 8:00

5. PIPELINE ID. NO. 11


5.1 Based on 2011 ILI run by ROSEN
Table 5-1 Manufacturing Defects at 10” SEA-SED
Depth Length Width Orientation
Distance (m) Surface
(%WT) (mm) (mm) (hrs:mins)
0.105 Internal 10 38 18 3:00
1.528 Internal 12 20 15 12:04

5.2 Based on 2015 ILI run by ROMSTAR


Table 5-2: Manufacturing Defects at 10” SEA-SED
Depth Length Width Orientation
Distance (m) Surface
(% WT) (mm) (mm) (hrs:mins)
0.251 Internal 11 9.90 9.738 10:58
0.485 Internal 14 9.57 9.738 10:28
0.597 Internal 11 9.90 9.738 1:10
0.620 Internal 16 9.34 9.738 12:10
0.633 Internal 10 10.01 9.738 11:14
0.640 Internal 11 9.90 9.738 10:52

6. PIPELINE ID. NO. 12


6.1 Based on 1996 ILI run by ROSEN
No manufacturing defects detected during ILI.

6.2 Based on 2012 ILI run by ROSEN


Table 6-1: Manufacturing Defects at 6” SEA-SEG
Depth Length Width Orientation
Distance (m) Surface
(%WT) (mm) (mm) (hrs:mins)
69.40 External 10 20 23 6:37
92.64 Internal 12 32 51 11:19
92.71 Internal 14 40 33 11:13
105.5 Internal 14 22 20 12:20
105.68 Internal 16 26 20 8:35
105.68 Internal 20 27 17 4:58
107.13 Internal 10 35 27 8:18

Page 3 of 3
126.76 Internal 15 31 46 10:10
296.46 External 11 48 38 11:41
1,168.92 Internal 15 23 27 3:48

Table 6-2: Girth Weld Anomaly at 6” SEA-SEG


Orientation
Distance (m) Depth (%WT) Length (mm) Width (mm)
(hrs:mins)
39.23 37 44 332 11:02

7. PIPELINE ID. NO. 22


7.1 Based on 2011 ILI run by ROSEN
Table 7-1: Manufacturing Defects at 8” SEA - LWA
Depth Length Width Orientation
Distance (m) Surface
(%WT) (mm) (mm) (hrs:mins)
14,135.27 External 10 49 48 3:16
16,538.69 External 11 56 29 3:35
17,004.88 External 10 57 24 1:24
17,697.37 External 10 58 18 9:31
21,630.45 External 11 25 21 7:45
23,203.60 External 11 60 16 2:37
24,626.30 External 11 46 27 8:48
24,693.16 External 11 34 51 3:12
29,657.76 External 11 26 39 3:43
43,320.67 External 10 8 15 11:26
52,847.27 External 12 8 16 11:50

Page 4 of 4
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Appendix C Details on the Underwater Inspection Findings

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page C-1
1. PIPELINE ID. NO. 1
1.1 Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Table 1-1 List of Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)
Scaffold pole (approximately 3m
in length x 50mm in diameter) in
contact with the pipeline. No
sign of any damaged observed
Riser 542465.85 601968.97
at the contract area. Unable to
remove the debris due to its
excessive size and partially
stuck into the seabed.
An oil drum (approximately 1.5m
in length x 30inch in diameter) in
contact with the pipeline. No
Pipeline 542439.15 601955.80 sign of any damage observed at
the contact area. Unable to
remove the debris due to its
excessive size.

1.2 Concrete Coating Damage


Table 1-2 List of Weight Coating Damage in Pipeline
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Weight coating cracked was


observed at 12 o/c position of
Pipeline 517767.56 598647.98 the pipeline. Size of the crack is
estimated approximately 2m
in length x 5mm in width

Weight coating cracked was


observed at 12 o/c position of
Pipeline 515872.21 599621.55 the pipeline. Size of the crack is
estimated approximately 1m
in length x 5mm in width.

Page 1 of 18
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Weight coating cracked was


observed at 12 o/c position of
Pipeline 512750.03 601211.35 the pipeline. Size of the crack is
estimated approximately
300mm in length x 5mm in width

Weight coating cracked was


observed at 12 o/c position of
Pipeline 512443.55 601373.95 the pipeline. Size of the crack is
estimated approximately
300mm in length x 5mm in width

Weight coating cracked was


observed at 12 o/c position of
Pipeline 504126.44 605603.02 the pipeline. Size of the crack is
estimated approximately 1m
in length x 5mm in width.

Weight coating cracked was


observed at 12 o/c position of
the pipeline. Size of the crack is
Pipeline 512321.03 601434.57 estimated approximately
300mm in length x 5mm in
width.

Weight coating cracked was


observed at 12 o/c position of
Pipeline 502135.06 606614.38 the pipeline. Size of the crack is
estimated approximately
300mm in length x 5mm in width

Weight coating cracked was


observed at 12 o/c position of
Pipeline 515807.25 599653.77 the pipeline. Size of the crack is
estimated approximately 2m
in length x 5mm in width

Page 2 of 18
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Weight coating cracked was


observed at 12 o/c position of
Pipeline 512979.81 601096.53 the pipeline. Size of the crack is
estimated approximately
300mm in length x 5mm in width

Weight coating damaged was


observed at 6 o'c to 12 o’c
position of the pipeline. Size of
the crack is estimated
Pipeline 497770.61 608970.91 approximately
250mm in length x 100mm in
width. ROV direction from SEA
to TAP

Weight coating damaged was


observed at 12 o’c position of
the pipeline. Size of the crack is
Pipeline 497765.53 608974.86 estimated approximately 2m in
length
x 200mm in width. ROV
direction from SEA to TAP

2. PIPELINE ID. NO. 2


2.1 Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Table 2-1 List of Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Coordinates (m)
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Wire rope debris (approximately


5m in length) in contact with the
pipeline. No sign of any damage
Pipeline 542570.40 601981.38
observed at the contact are.
Unable to remove the debris due
its excessive size.

Page 3 of 18
Coordinates (m)
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Grating debris (approximately


3m in length x 500mm in width)
in contact with the pipeline. No
Pipeline 542544.93 601979.93 sign of any damage observed at
the contact area. Unable to
remove debris due its excessive
size.

3. PIPELINE ID. NO. 5


3.1 Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Table 3-1 List of Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

2 pieces of grating debris of


approximately 1m in length x
Riser 542516.38 601974.57 500mm in width in contact with
riser. Object was not removed due
to large size.

8” SEA-RAA-LWA line crossing 18”


SEE-SEA was found to be in
contact. No significant damage was
Pipeline 544294.82 601789.31 reported at the crossing area. The
initial position of the 8” SEA-RAA-
LWS which is supposed to be at the
concrete mattress has been shifted.

Oil drum of approximately 1.5m in


length x 500m in diameter in
Pipeline 545646.56 600578.24
contact with the pipeline. Object
was not removed due to large size.

Anchor chain was observed around


the pipeline and tyre debris in
Pipeline 548913.59 599378.81
contact underneath the pipeline.
Object was not removed.

Page 4 of 18
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Grating of approximately 5m in
length x 4m in width and wire rope
Pipeline 549395.48 599198.43
in contact with pipeline. Object was
not removed due to large size.

2 pieces of gratings of
approximately 4m in length x 4m in
Pipeline 549392.50 599183.41 width each in contact with pipeline.
Object was not removed due to
large size.

A power cable of approximately 4”


Pipeline 542567.67 601975.64 diameter in contact and crossing
above the pipeline.

Scaffold pole debris approximately


2m in length X 50mm in diameter in
Pipeline 542546.86 601976.30
contact with pipeline. Object was
not removed due to large size

4. PIPELINE ID. NO. 6


4.1 Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Table 4-1 List of Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Wooden log in contact at KP


Pipeline 539027.71 602591.30
0.857.

Page 5 of 18
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Concrete block in contact from


Pipeline 539748.22 602796.31
left at KP 1.589

Fishing rope in contact from right


Pipeline 540506.26 602747.96
at KP 2.448

Fishing net contact from left at


Pipeline 541549.95 599198.43
KP 3.435

Debris metal pole not in contact


Pipeline 541655.33 602442.41
from right at KP 3.555

Fishing net in contact on top from


Pipeline 541913.14 602295.07
left at KP 3.852

Page 6 of 18
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Debris metal left not in contact


Pipeline 542202.57 602134.19
left at KP 4.183

Debris metal left in contact left at


Pipeline 542246.29 602109.25
KP 4.234

Debris metal left in contact on top


Pipeline 542257.21 602102.29
at KP 4.247

Debris in contact with pipeline left


Pipeline 542422.95 601994.56
at KP 4.447

Debris grating and pipe pole not


Pipeline 542461.34 601972.97 in contact below riser elbow at
KP 4.490

Page 7 of 18
5. PIPELINE ID. NO. 10
5.1 Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Table 5-1 List of Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Metallic object approximately 500mm


x 500mm in contact with the riser.
Riser 546341.76 600791.61
Object was not removed due to large
size.

Scaffold pole debris approximately


3m length x 50mm diameter in
Pipeline 542591.02 602102.66
contact with pipeline. Object was not
removed due to large size.

Metallic fishing gear entangled with


soft rope approximately 3m in length
Pipeline 542623.96 602100.98 x 500mm in width in contact with
pipeline. Object was not removed due
to large size.

Scaffold pole debris approximately


3m in length x 50mm in diameter in
Pipeline 542667.52 602105.87
contact with the pipeline. Object was
not removed due to large size.

Scaffold pole debris approximately


2m in length x 50mm in diameter in
Pipeline 542701.41 602111.38
contact with the pipeline. Object was
not removed due to large size.

Metallic fishing gear approximately


3m in length x 1m in width in contact
Pipeline 542758.81 602112.79
with the pipeline. Object was not
removed due to large size.

Scaffold pole debris approximately


3m in length x 50mm in diameter in
Pipeline 546169.46 601218.81
contact with the pipeline. Object was
not removed due to large size.

Page 8 of 18
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Scaffold pole debris approximately


3m in length X 50mm in diameter in
Pipeline 546221.4 601113.17
contact with pipeline. Object was not
removed due to large size

Scaffold pole debris approximately


4m in length X 50mm in diameter in
Pipeline 546283.55 600921.34
contact with pipeline. Object was not
removed due to large size.

Grating debris approximately 2m in


length x 1m in width in contact with
Pipeline 546321.04 600831.90
pipeline. Object was not removed due
to large size.

6. PIPELINE ID. NO. 11


6.1 Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Table 6-1 List of Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

A power cable (approx. 4” dia) from


SEA to SED was observed in contact
Pipeline 542434.90 598551.98
and crossing above
PL-10-SEA-SED-GAS

Grating debris (approximately 5m in


length x 500mm in diameter) in
Pipeline 542477.25 601933.71 contact with the pipeline. Object was
not removed due to it's excessive
size.

Page 9 of 18
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Metallic debris consist of paint


bucket approximately 400mm in
length x 300mm in diameter, metallic
frame approximately 400mm
Pipeline 542475.07 601951.77 in length x 300mm in width, grating
approximately 2m in length x 300mm
in width in contact with the pipeline.
Object was not removed due to
present of other debris in the vicinity.

Grating debris (approximately 2m in


length x 200mm in width) in contact
Pipeline 542477.33 601956.66 with the pipeline. Object was not
removed due to contact with other
debris and partially buried.

7. PIPELINE ID. NO. 12


7.1 Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Table 7-1 List of Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Metallic debris on top of pipeline


Pipeline 542262.29 602338.60 at approximately 12 o’clock
positon at KP0.317

Metallic debris on top of pipeline


Pipeline 541829.53 602728.87
at KP 0.916

Metallic debris in contact with the


Pipeline 538748.94 602689.73 pipeline at approximately 12
o’clock position at KP4.110

Page 10 of 18
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Subsea cable SeAP-SEG


At KP4.322
crossing the SEA-SEG pipeline
Pipeline NA NA
without any separation at
KP4.322 and KP4.676

At KP4.676

7.2 Concrete Coating Damage


Table 7-2 Concrete Coating Damage at KP0.318

Location KP Description Figure

Concrete coating was found missing from 8


o’clock to 12.30 o’clock position of approximately
Pipeline 0.318 100mm x 150mm in area. Bare metal was found
to be exposed. No damage on the bare metal
was reported.

8. PIPELINE ID. NO. 13


8.1 Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Table 8-1 List of Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Soft line debris in contact with the


riser. Object was not removed as it
Riser @SED 542438.66 598473.59
poses entanglement hazard to the
ROV.

Page 11 of 18
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Scaffolding poles debris


approximately 2m length x 50mm in
Riser
542436.84 598472.87 diameter in contact with riser.
@SED
Object was not removed due to
large size.

Scaffold pole debris approximately


2m length x 50mm in diameter in
Pipeline 542462.59 598474.15 contact with pipeline. Object was
not removed due to it was stuck
into the seabed.

Scaffold pole debris approximately


3m length x 50mm in diameter in
Pipeline 542453.16 598474.28 contact with pipeline. Object was
not removed due it was stuck into
the seabed.

Flat bar debris approximately 3m


length x 50mm in width in contact
Pipeline 542440.66 598475.23 with pipeline. Object was not
removed due to it was stuck with
other debris in the vicinity.

Scaffold pole debris approximately


5m length x 50mm in diameter in
Pipeline 545797.50 598070.08
contact with pipeline. Object was
not removed due to large size.

Metallic plate debris approximately


2m length x 2m in width in contact
Pipeline 545800.27 598069.98
with pipeline. Object was not
removed due to large size.

Page 12 of 18
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Metallic bar debris approximately


2m length x 50mm in width in
Pipeline 545804.83 598068.72
contact with pipeline. Object was
not removed due to large size.

Grating debris approximately 3m


length x 500mm in width in contact
Pipeline 545804.66 598068.46
with pipeline. Object was not
removed due to large size.

Grating debris approximately 2m


length x 1m in width in contact with
Riser riser bends. Object was not
545808.56 598061.86
@SEC removed due to large size and
present of scaffold pole in the
vicinity restricting ROV access.

9. PIPELINE ID. NO. 14


9.1 Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Table 9-1 List of Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Riser Subsea cable in contact with SEB


546344.31 600788.93
@SEB riser elbow.

Pipeline 546352.03 600788.13 Debris grating panel in contact on


top of pipeline at KP 0.011.

Page 13 of 18
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Debris metal bar in contact on


Pipeline 546355.70 600787.77 right of pipeline at KP 0.014.

Debris scaffolding pole in contact


Pipeline 546429.85 600781.26 on top of pipeline
At KP 0.089

Pipeline 549403.12 599200.08 Debris metal plate in contact with


pipeline on top at KP 3.587.

Debris metal pipe below pipeline


Pipeline 549404.61 599198.66 at KP 3.589

Debris grating panel and wire in


Pipeline 549396.59 599179.40 contact with pipeline
on top at KP 3.604

Page 14 of 18
10. PIPELINE ID. NO. 15
10.1 Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Table 10-1 List of Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Cross over – no gap between


two pipeline. Same line crosses
Riser 542270.71 598397.15 twice. However, no significant
damaged to the pipeline weight
coat at the particular location.
6” pipeline on top cross
towards right. Pipeline
crossing at KP 0.157.

Cross over – no gap between


two pipeline. Same line crosses
Riser 542240.49 598386.04 twice. However, no significant
damaged to the pipeline weight
coat at the particular location.
6” pipeline on top cross
towards left. Pipeline
crossing at KP 0.189.

Metal grating in contact with


pipeline > 1m in length,
KP4.343. However, there was
no visible sign of any damage
Pipeline 538405.67 596799.46
to the pipeline or its weight coat CP Probe
cover attributable to the debris
in contact along in the pipeline
inspected.

11. PIPELINE ID. NO. 17


11.1 Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Table 11-1 List of Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Coordinates
No. KP Description
Easting Northing
1 0.075 542515.51 602191.91 Metallic Debris
2 0.111 542500.82 602224.99 Metal Objects
3 0.137 542490.43 602248.86 Anchor
4 7.412 536959.60 605997.74 Wire Rope
5 21.861 522707.01 604744.52 Metal Object/Buoy
6 21.872 522696.40 604740.00 Wire Rope
7 42.708 504435.44 594813.58 Scaffolding

Page 15 of 18
Coordinates
No. KP Description
Easting Northing
8 57.400 491531.93 587788.21 Scaffolding
9 80.382 471348.30 576797.83 Metallic Frame
10 80.636 471125.69 576675.80 Chain
11 81.661 470225.79 576185.86 Wire Rope

12. PIPELINE ID. NO. 18


12.1 Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Table 12-1 List of Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Grating debris of approximately 1m in


length x 500mm in width in contact with
Riser
542518.72 601972.98 riser. Object was not removed as it was
@RAA
stuck in between the riser and vertical
diagonal member.

3 metallic debris of approximately 2m in


length x 80mm in diameter in contact with
Pipeline 542076.80 618226.00
pipeline. Object was not removed due to
large size.

13. PIPELINE ID. NO. 19


13.1 Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Table 13-1 List of Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)
Strainer debris (approximately 2m in
length x 500mm diameter) and grating
debris (approximately 1m in length x
500mm in width) were in contact with
Riser 542493.69 601998.57
riser bend. No sign of any damage
observed at the contact area. Unable to
remove the debris due to excessive size
and overlap each other

Page 16 of 18
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Scaffold pole debris (approximately 4m


in length x 50mm in diameter) in contact
with the pipeline. No sign of any
Pipeline 542497.76 601999.69
damage observed at the contact area.
Unable to remove the debris due to
excessive size.

14. PIPELINE ID. NO. 22


14.1 Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Table 14-1 List of Metal Objects in Contact with Pipeline/Riser
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Scaffold pole debris approximately 2m in


length x 50m in diameter in contact with
Riser
542520.0 602117.93 the riser bend. Object was not moved
Bend
due to excessive size and partially stuck
to the seabed.

Oil drum debris approximately 1m in


length and 500mm in diameter in
Pipeline 565355.52 640875.18
contact with pipeline. Object was not
removed due to excessive size.

Anchor with chain attached with rope in


contact on the starboard side of pipeline.
Pipeline 546618.97 637379.91 Object was not inspected accordingly
due to restricted access and safety of
the vehicle.

Page 17 of 18
Coordinates
Location Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Anchor attached with softline not in


contact on the port side of the pipeline.
Pipeline 541945.28 629952.10 Object was not inspected accordingly
due to restricted access and safety of
the vehicle.

A bundle of scaffolding poles


(approximately 3m in length x 2m in
Pipeline 540044.47 627168.98 width) in contact with the pipeline.
Object was not moved due to excessive
size.

Fishing net wrapped around the riser


approximately 5m in length x 5m in
Riser 565391.74 640869.76
width. Object was not removed due to
entanglement hazard to the ROV.

Page 18 of 18
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Appendix D Details on the CP Inspection Findings

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page D-1
1. PIPELINE ID. NO. 1
Table 1-1 CP readings at Riser
Location Type Water Depth (m) CP (mV)
Riser Bend 73.5 -977
Riser Clamp 49.0 -983
Riser (SEA)
Riser Clamp 29.5 -984
Riser Clamp 11.5 -965
[1] [1]
Riser Bend NA NA
[1] [1]
Riser Clamp NA NA
[1] [1]
Riser (TAP Riser Clamp NA NA
[1] [1]
Riser Clamp NA NA
[1] [1]
Riser Clamp NA NA
Note:
1) NA = Information not available.
Table 1-2 CP and Depletion at Pipeline
Coordinates
CP (mV) Depletion (%)
Easting (m) Northing (m)
542458.67 601965.28 -1014 25-50
542445.63 601959.18 -1016 25-50
542424.23 601948.77 -1019 25-50
542357.45 601917.94 -1015 25-50
542290.77 601887.33 -1017 25-50
542224.61 601854.7 -917 25-50
542158.16 601821.57 -1023 25-50
542091.80 601788.12 -1024 25-50
542026.05 601755.64 -1018 25-50
541959.45 601722.53 -1025 25-50
541557.69 601527.74 -1026 25-50
540597.24 601161.99 -1039 25-50
539628.89 600820.33 -1046 0-25
538729.46 600503.73 -1042 0-25
537625.29 600110.20 -1053 0-25
536807.12 599779.88 -1051 0-25
535052.16 599027.23 -1056 50-75
533537.29 598653.32 -1053 25-50
531577.49 597945.97 -1052 50-75
530541.37 597568.16 -1053 0-25
529490.54 597186.62 -1055 0-25
528128.50 596693.53 -1054 0-25

Page 1 of 15
Coordinates
CP (mV) Depletion (%)
Easting (m) Northing (m)
526661.69 596156.30 -1050 0-25
525498.98 595764.70 -1046 50-75
522541.40 596254.04 -1044 N/A
522541.11 596253.95 -1044 N/A
522541.13 596253.87 -1042 N/A
522533.39 596269.49 -1045 N/A
522533.28 596269.67 -1046 N/A
522524.64 596278.73 -1043 N/A
522524.53 596278.87 -1045 N/A
522523.65 596280.00 -1032 N/A
522420.92 596314.43 -1042 N/A
522397.16 596323.51 -1043 25-50
522113.11 596445.41 -1044 N/A
521839.23 596574.24 -1044 50-75
520853.54 597084.08 -1039 0-25
519865.52 597589.62 -1045 0-25
518981.08 598032.34 -1048 0-25
518646.06 598206.78 -1046 75-100
518515.01 598276.74 -1041 N/A
518437.41 598315.57 -1041 N/A
518383.04 598343.91 -1046 N/A
518305.64 598383.18 -1043 N/A
518260.90 598404.34 -1041 N/A
518238.74 598414.69 -1043 N/A
517921.70 598554.49 -1043 N/A
517873.98 598583.47 -1048 25-50
516999.89 599042.76 -1048 50-75
516118.85 599492.18 -1047 50-75
515236.21 599936.95 -1045 50-75
514578.08 600278.47 -1047 0-25
514246.08 600442.03 -1046 50-75
513530.79 600815.21 -1044 N/A
513371.00 600897.09 -1039 25-50
512271.30 601458.34 -1045 25-50
511390.21 601900.79 -1044 25-50

Page 2 of 15
2. PIPELINE. ID NO. 2
Table 2-1 CP readings at Riser
Location Type Water Depth (m) CP (mV)
Riser Clamp 12.0 -955
Riser (SEB) Riser Clamp 30.0 -902
Riser Clamp 50.0 -949
Riser Clamp 11.5 -981
Riser Clamp 29.5 -983
Riser (SEA)
Riser Clamp 49.0 -990
Riser Bend 71.0 -987

Table 2-2 CP and Depletion at Pipeline


Coordinates
KP (km) CP (mV) Depletion (%)
Easting (m) Northing (m)
546263.13 600915.17 0.138 -967 25-50
546187.69 601013.33 0.262 -1036 0-25
546043.03 601213.29 0.509 -977 25-50
545258.97 601891.39 1.562 -1023 Hot Tap Stab
543973.21 602009.62 2.864 -991 25-50
543725.28 602012.29 3.112 -987 75-100
542851.77 601991.37 3.986 -979 75-100
542736.50 601988.47 4.101 -978 75-100

3. PIPELINE ID. NO. 5


Table 3-1 CP readings at Riser
Location Type Water Depth (m) CP (mV)
Riser Bend 73.5 -1000
Riser Clamp 50.0 -889
Riser (SEE)
Riser Clamp 30.0 -864
Riser Clamp 12.0 -101
Riser Clamp 49.0 -987
Riser (SEA) Riser Clamp 29.5 -986
Riser Clamp 11.5 -983

Table 3-2 CP and Depletion at Pipeline


KP (km) CP (mV) Depletion (%)
0.054 -980 75-100
0.014 -970 75-100
0.178 -964 75-100
0.239 -962 75-100
0.302 -964 75-100
0.364 -964 75-100

Page 3 of 15
KP (km) CP (mV) Depletion (%)
0.487 -966 75-100
0.494 -967 75-100
0.673 -973 75-100
0.736 -978 75-100
0.797 -980 75-100
0.982 -1061 0-25
2.038 -1027 0-25
2.971 -1030 25-50
4.393 -1040 25-50
5.752 -1035 25-50
6.433 -1029 25-50
7.112 -1006 25-50
7.174 -916 25-50
7.236 -953 25-50
7.297 -994 75-100
7.359 -990 75-100
7.421 -989 75-100
7.483 -987 75-100
7.544 -987 75-100
7.607 -986 75-100
7.619 -986 75-100

4. PIPELINE ID. NO. 6


Table 4-1 CP and Depletion at Pipeline

Easting (m) Northing (m) KP CP (mV) Depletion (%)

538561.39 602515.02 0.352 -989mV Anode visible


538791.88 602606 0.600 -984mV Anode visible
538906.89 602648.84 0.723 -985mV Anode visible
539024.68 602690.65 0.848 -978mV Anode visible
539880.10 602791.59 1.715 -1010mV Anode visible
540746.00 602738.44 2.582 -1021mV Anode visible
541566.93 602490.53 3.449 -1020mV Anode visible
542108.795 602185.426 4.070 -999mV Anode visible
542216.635 602125.226 4.193 -999mV Anode visible
542323.701 602062.302 4.320 -998mV Anode visible
542425.612 601992.371 4.445 -991mV 75%-100% depleted

Page 4 of 15
5. PIPELINE ID. NO. 8
Table 5.1: CP readings at Riser SEH
Location Type Water Depth (m) CP (mV)
Riser Bend 73 -1007
Riser Clamp 60 -961
Riser SEH Riser Clamp 48 -1001
Riser Clamp 28 -1000
Riser Clamp 11 -971

Table 5.2: CP and Depletion at Pipeline

KP (km) CP (mV) Depletion (%)

0.015 -932 75-100


0.027 -990 50-75
0.039 -990 75-100
0.051 -985 75-100
0.112 -990 50-75
0.161 -1020 50-75
0.210 -999 50-75
0.259 -1000 25-50
0.282 -995 25-50
0.356 -1006 25-50
0.380 -1006 25-50
0.405 -1012 50-75
0.429 -1011 50-75
0.515 -1011 50-75
0.532 -1006 75-100
1.349 -1025 25-50
2.264 -1004 50-75
2.276 -996 50-75
2.284 -1011 25-50
2.315 -995 50-75

6. PIPELINE ID. NO. 10


Table 6-1 CP readings at Riser
Location Type Water Depth (m) CP (mV)
Riser Bend 71.5 -995
Riser Clamp 47.5 -996
Riser (SEA)
Riser Clamp 28.0 -992
Riser Clamp 10.0 -949
Riser Bend 72.3 -943
Riser Clamp 50.0 -957
Riser (SEB)
Riser Clamp 30.0 -867
Riser Clamp 12.0 -865

Page 5 of 15
Table 6-2 CP and Depletion at Pipeline
Coordinates
KP (km) CP (mV) Depletion (%)
Easting (m) Northing (m)
543993.01 602103.89 1.467 -1019 50-75
544859.30 602110.51 2.334 -1010 50-75
546251.40 601032.33 4.188 -941 75-100
546286.06 600913.26 4.312 -855 75-100

7. PIPELINE ID. NO. 11


Table 7-1 CP readings at Riser
Location Type Water Depth (m) CP (mV)
Riser Bend 70.8 -976
Riser Clamp 48.4 -991
Riser (SEA)
Riser Clamp 28.8 -987
Riser Clamp 10.9 -981
(1)
Riser Bend 73.4 NA
Riser Clamp 50.0 -905
Riser (SED) Riser Clamp 30.5 -932
Riser Clamp 12.5 -965
Riser Clamp 7.0 -959
Note:
1) Unable to obtain CP reading due to tick coating. Riser 50% buried.

Table 7-2 CP and Depletion at Pipeline


Coordinates
CP (mV) Depletion (%)
Easting (m) Northing (m)
542434.47 598612.84 -953 75-100
542434.34 598734.78 -949 75-100
542435.02 598857.31 -947 75-100
542433.96 599104.25 -946 75-100
542436.43 599229.69 -945 75-100
542437.24 599353.47 -947 75-100
542438.18 599476.64 -946 75-100
542433.36 599600.17 -946 75-100
542436.29 599968.23 -948 75-100
542449.36 600213.90 -947 75-100
542458.92 600335.98 -948 75-100
542469.22 600459.04 -949 75-100
542481.84 600580.35 -950 75-100
542494.52 600705.30 -953 75-100

Page 6 of 15
Coordinates
CP (mV) Depletion (%)
Easting (m) Northing (m)
542517.54 600948.80 -953 75-100
542519.89 601072.10 -954 75-100
542521.55 601193.22 -956 75-100
542523.16 601318.03 -1036 0-25
542515.14 601439.02 -961 75-100
542500.28 601561.52 -954 75-100
542492.64 601684.77 -966 75-100
542486.38 601807.69 -970 75-100
542477.06 601932.70 -980 75-100

8. PIPELINE ID. NO. 12


No detail data of the CP readings and depletion percentages were available.

9. PIPELINE ID. NO. 13


Table 9-1 CP readings at Riser
Location Type Water Depth (m) CP (mV)
Riser Bend 73.4 -970
Riser Clamp 61.3 -962
Riser Clamp 50.0 -966
Riser Clamp 37.2 -963
Riser (SED)
Riser Clamp 30.0 -964
Riser Clamp 23.5 -959
Riser Clamp 12.0 -964
Riser Clamp 7.9 -961
Riser Bend 71.5 NA
Riser Clamp 61.5 -1000
Riser Clamp 50.0 -1003
Riser Clamp 38.9 -1005
Riser (SEC)
Riser Clamp 30.0 -1013
Riser Clamp 21.9 -1008
Riser Clamp 12.0 -1014
Riser Clamp 6.3 -1009
Note: NA = Information Not Available

Table 9-2 CP and Depletion at Pipeline


Coordinates
KP (km) CP (mV) Depletion (%)
Easting (m) Northing (m)
542474.53 598474.08 0.035 -957 75-100
542549.25 598462.59 0.111 -953 75-100
542623.28 598448.88 0.187 -958 75-100
542699.36 598441.47 0.263 -965 75-100
542775.28 598434.61 0.340 -966 0-25
542851.29 598426.26 0.415 -969 75-100
542978.49 598413.03 0.544 -998 25-50
543104.32 598399.10 0.670 -1000 75-100
543987.90 598291.04 1.560 -1020 50-75

Page 7 of 15
Coordinates
KP (km) CP (mV) Depletion (%)
Easting (m) Northing (m)
544869.53 598183.36 2.449 -1014 50-75
545373.27 598120.14 2.957 -1000 50-75
545499.87 598110.05 3.084 -996 75-100
545626.56 598096.25 3.211 -993 75-100
545751.06 598079.77 3.337 -1001 75-100
545753.47 598079.58 3.340 -971 NA
545789.60 598071.77 3.376 -1009 50-75
Note: NA = Information Not Available

10. PIPELINE ID. NO. 14


Table 10-1 Summary of CP Readings and Estimated Depletion
Item KP (km) Value Remarks
Min. CP 2.457 -1016 mV -
Max. CP 0.681 -951 mV -

Max. anode 3.580 100% Noted 11 anodes have depleted approx. 25% to 50%

Table 10-2 Anode with Maximum Depletion at KP3.58


Coordinates
Easting Northing Description Figure
(m) (m)

Anode with maximum depletion of


549403.12 599200.08
100% at KP 3.58.

11. PIPELINE ID. NO. 15


No percentages of depletions were estimated as the survey had difficulties to identify
depletion due to the presence of silt around the pipeline and thin layer of marine growth.

12. PIPELINE ID. NO. 16


Table 12.1: CP readings at Riser SEH
Location Type Water Depth (m) CP (mV)
Riser Bend 73 -1003
Riser Clamp 66 -945
Riser Clamp 60 -987
Riser SEH Riser Clamp 48 -946
Riser Clamp 40 -994
Riser Clamp 28 -961
Riser Clamp 16 -928

Page 8 of 15
Table 12.2: CP and Depletion at Pipeline

KP (km) CP (mV) Depletion (%)

0.167 -1019 25-50


1.394 -976 0-25
1.517 -980 50-75
1.638 -984 50-75
1.772 -987 75-100

13. PIPELINE ID. NO. 17


Table 13-1 CP readings at Riser
Location Type CP (mV)
Riser (SEA) Riser Bend -1008
Riser (ANGSI) Riser Bend -1009

Table 13-2 CP and Depletion at Pipeline

KP (km) CP (mV) Depletion (%)

81.106 -1011 <75


81.290 -1008 <75
81.473 -1006 <75
81.597 -1008 <75
81.779 -1006 <75
81.909 -1021 <25

14. PIPELINE ID. NO. 18


Table 14-1 CP readings at Riser
Location Type Water Depth (m) CP (mV)
Riser Bend 66.2 -1018
Riser Clamp 47.0 -1002
Riser (RAA)
Riser Clamp 28.0 -1007
Riser Clamp 11.0 -1006
Riser Bend 77.0 -991
Riser Clamp 54.0 -987
Riser (SEA) Riser Clamp 43.5 -921
Riser Clamp 29.5 -986
Riser Clamp 11.5 -984

Table 14-2 CP and Depletion at Pipeline


Coordinates
KP (km) CP (mV) Depletion (%)
Easting (m) Northing (m)
540020.0 627165.3 0.007 -1011 25-50
540051.7 627147.6 0.044 -993 50-75
540060.8 627141.3 0.055 -994 50-75
540071.4 627135.1 0.067 -1004 25-50
540084.1 627120.8 0.079 -997 50-75
540115.2 627113.2 0.116 -994 50-75

Page 9 of 15
Coordinates
KP (km) CP (mV) Depletion (%)
Easting (m) Northing (m)
540148.6 627095.1 0.154 -992 50-75
540182.1 627078.6 0.191 -971 50-75
540281.4 627028.4 0.302 -984 50-75
540345.2 626990.6 0.376 -994 50-75
540376.3 626972.2 0.413 -993 50-75
540408.5 626954.5 0.45 -992 50-75
540461.0 626937.4 0.512 -1000 50-75
540474.2 626929.5 0.554 -1001 50-75
540517.7 626896.0 0.603 -1007 50-75
541269.9 626270.5 1.595 -1016 25-50
541394.8 623998.2 2.881 -1032 25-50
541462.8 625032.5 3.921 -1027 25-50
541526.9 622856.9 5.071 -1037 25-50
541663.5 621751.8 6.184 -1040 0-25
541794.8 620645.0 7.298 -1041 0-25
541923.6 619538.1 8.413 -1044 0-25
542075.6 618243.4 9.717 -1037 0-25
542097.2 618058.4 9.903 -1031 25-50
542266.3 616582.5 11.389 -1041 0-25
542405.5 615401.4 12.579 -1036 25-50
542525.6 601972.9 13.671 -1004 25-50
542541.9 601971.5 15.121 -981 0-25
542554.7 601970.2 16.236 -995 25-50
542675.3 601957.5 17.349 -1001 50-75
542797.0 601945.3 18.711 -1010 50-75
542851.7 614409.4 19.827 -1041 25-50
542919.6 601933.8 20.942 -1009 50-75
543464.7 613095.7 22.431 -1041 25-50
543937.6 612086.5 23.916 -1041 0-25
544151.1 601805.3 25.523 -1022 50-75
544406.5 611076.8 26.759 -1030 0-25
544983.6 609843.3 28.118 -1038 0-25
545384.7 601675.0 29.602 -1033 50-75
545452.3 608830.5 30.843 -1035 0-25
545923.8 607819.7 32.081 -1036 25-50
546552.7 606473.0 32.205 -1046 25-50
546859.4 601617.1 32.327 -1038 25-50
547179.1 605127.0 32.449 -1044 25-50
547857.0 603669.6 32.460 -1044 0-25
547857.7 602467.3 32.477 -1029 0-25

15. PIPELINE ID. NO. 19


Table 15-1 CP readings at Riser
Location Type Water Depth (m) CP (mV)
Riser Bend 64.5 -1008
Riser (LWA) Riser Clamp 48 -1006
Riser Clamp 28 -1001
Riser Bend 71 -986
Riser (SEA) Riser Clamp 55 -966
Riser Clamp 42.64 -989

Page 10 of 15
Location Type Water Depth (m) CP (mV)
Riser Clamp 14.34 -985

Table 15-2 CP and Depletion at Pipeline


KP (km) CP (mV) Depletion (%)
0.219 -1001 75-100
0.533 -1021 75-100

16. PIPELINE ID. NO. 21


Table 16.1: CP readings at Riser SRA
Location Type Water Depth (m) CP (mV)
Riser Bend 64.5 -1009
Riser Clamp 48 -1004
Riser SRA
Riser Clamp 28 -998
Riser Clamp 11 -1001

Table 16.2: CP and Depletion at Pipeline

KP (km) CP (mV) Depletion (%)

0.016 -1012 25-50


0.059 -1008 50-75
0.119 -1009 50-75
0.193 -1003 75-100
0.266 -1014 50-75
0.340 -1013 50-75
0.413 -1017 50-75
0.462 -1006 50-75
0.518 -1004 50-75
0.580 -1024 50-75
1.672 -1029 50-75
2.884 -1035 0-25
3.965 -1039 0-25
5.145 -1043 25-50
6.323 -1048 25-50
7.503 -1047 25-50
8.681 -1050 25-50
9.861 -1049 25-50
11.039 -1049 0-25
12.225 -1050 0-25
13.539 -1044 25-50
14.029 -1047 0-25

Page 11 of 15
17. PIPELINE ID. NO. 22
Table 17-1 CP readings at Riser
Location Type Water Depth (m) CP (mV)
Riser Bend 71.8 -997
Riser Clamp 59.3 -990
Riser Clamp 46.6 -986
Riser (SEA)
Riser Clamp 33.8 -992
Riser Clamp 19.3 -909
Riser Clamp 9.3 -984
Riser Bend 61.7 -1008
Riser Clamp 53.9 -1002
Riser (SED) Riser Stab 39.4 -1004
Riser Clamp 39.4 -782
Riser Clamp 27.2 -1001
Note:
2) Unable to obtain CP reading due to tick coating. Riser 50% buried.

Table 17-2 CP and Depletion at Pipeline


Coordinates
CP (mV) Depletion (%)
Easting (m) Northing (m)
565372.03 640874.12 -1000 50-75
565378.27 640873.71 -1004 N/A
565384.88 640873.47 -1012 N/A
565360.29 640875.08 -1004 50-75
565348.19 640875.70 -1000 50-75
565298.15 640879.12 -1001 50-75
565149.66 640890.70 -998 50-75
565001.76 640902.25 -1008 50-75
564854.56 640912.01 -1022 25-50
563220.31 641022.05 -1036 50-75
558616.86 641333.45 -1046 75-100
556749.02 641460.35 -1053 25-50
555569.76 641540.07 -1051 25-50
554242.40 641626.07 -1047 25-50
552768.05 641728.09 -1041 25-50
551593.56 641808.08 -1032 50-75
551005.09 641848.87 -1020 50-75
550857.52 641857.88 -1020 50-75

Page 12 of 15
Coordinates
CP (mV) Depletion (%)
Easting (m) Northing (m)
550708.07 641866.44 -1006 50-75
550549.17 641875.52 -1011 N/A
550546.56 641875.87 -1008 N/A
550424.28 641882.02 -1020 50-75
549326.06 641537.70 -1020 50-75
548634.21 640583.76 -1044 50-75
547849.32 639334.70 -1045 50-75
547217.45 638333.05 -1048 50-75
546358.46 636969.56 -1051 50-75
545572.97 635718.19 -1050 50-75
544864.88 634597.51 -1054 0-25
544237.88 633598.79 -1054 0-25
543609.60 632599.92 -1054 25-50
542981.85 631599.20 -1051 25-50
542352.69 630602.12 -1048 25-50
541647.05 629479.72 -1042 50-75
541019.73 628480.02 -1030 50-75
540371.27 627512.1 -1006 50-75
540362.56 627502.82 -1008 50-75
540259.49 627395.85 -1005 50-75
540054.89 627180.61 -1008 50-75
540047.65 627172.01 -1007 50-75
540038.79 627162.29 -1010 50-75
540034.86 627157.11 -982 NA
540028.73 627150.82 -1003 NA
540071.05 627104.12 -991 50-75
540886.45 626276.45 -1010 50-75
541203.02 625147.43 -1021 50-75
541342.71 623950.30 -1031 50-75
541480.60 622758.81 -1033 50-75
541620.67 621559.49 -1030 50-75
541755.02 620361.17 -1034 50-75
541894.89 619166.70 -1033 50-75
542030.86 617972.04 -1033 50-75
542141.85 617027.30 -1034 50-75
542261.87 615979.61 -1033 25-50

Page 13 of 15
Coordinates
CP (mV) Depletion (%)
Easting (m) Northing (m)
542401.19 614786.81 -1033 50-75
542541.19 613592.63 -1033 25-50
542676.14 612396.16 -1035 25-50
542820.40 611149.42 -1035 50-75
542959.60 609951.53 -1033 50-75
543099.73 608754.47 -1033 50-75
543236.61 607543.54 -1034 50-75
543396.99 606157.71 -1037 25-50
543561.38 604774.12 -1032 25-50
543618.43 603540.92 -1033 50-75
543029.55 602635.38 -1020 50-75
542768.51 602364.98 -1012 50-75
542681.29 602277.03 -1001 75-100
542592.87 602189.20 -1007 50-75
542548.64 602146.09 -996 75-100
542531.03 602128.75 -943 75-100
542524.92 602122.28 -1005 50-75

18. PIPELINE ID. NO. 23


Table 18.1: CP readings at Riser RAA
Location Type Water Depth (m) CP (mV)
Riser Bend 66.4 -1028
Riser Clamp 56.0 -1010
Riser Clamp 45.0 -1014
Riser RAA
Riser Clamp 31.0 -1008
Riser Clamp 20.0 -1005
Riser Clamp 9.0 -1008

Table 18.2: CP and Depletion at Pipeline

KP (km) CP (mV) Depletion (%)

0.006 -1016 50-75


0.016 -1020 50-75

Page 14 of 15
19. PIPELINE ID. NO. 24
Table 19.1: CP readings at Riser SRA
Location Type Water Depth (m) CP (mV)
Riser Bend 64.5 -1021
Riser Clamp 57.7 -908
Riser Clamp 48.0 -1001
Riser SRA
Riser Clamp 40.1 -1002
Riser Clamp 28.0 -992
Riser Clamp 15.2 -1001

Table 19.2: CP and Depletion at Pipeline

KP (km) CP (mV) Depletion (%)

0.029 -1009 75-100

20. PIPELINE ID. NO. 25


Table 20.1: CP readings at Riser RAB
Location Type Water Depth (m) CP (mV)
Riser Bend 67.0 -1011
Riser Clamp 60.4 -1000
Riser Clamp 48.0 -1005
Riser RAB
Riser Clamp 40.1 -943
Riser Clamp 28.0 -1003
Riser Clamp 15.2 -1003

Table 20.2: CP and Depletion at Pipeline

KP (km) CP (mV) Depletion (%)

0.016 -1011 50-75


0.028 -1002 50-75
0.040 -1004 75-100
0.162 -1008 75-100
0.285 -1015 50-75
0.408 -1016 50-75
0.531 -1021 50-75
0.654 -1025 50-75
0.777 -1028 50-75
0.887 -1031 50-75
0.919 -1030 75-100
0.949 -1031 75-100

Page 15 of 15
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Appendix E Corrosion Classifications

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page E-1
1. PIPELINE ID. NO. 1
Table 1-1 Summary of Corrosion Features along Pipeline and Riser (2008 ILI)
Corrosion Defect Locations
CORROSION CLASSIFICATION
Internal External
General wall loss 10 0
Circumferential grooving 112 4
Axial grooving 0 0
Pitting 41 0
Circumferential slotting 33 5
Axial slotting 1 0
Pinhole 0 0
Sub Total 197 9
[1]
Total 206
Note:
1) Total metal loss as identified during ILI run. In addition, 23 metal loss identified as manufacturing defect is
included as part of the corrosion defects assessment due to depth exceeding tolerance (as describe in Section
4.1.1). Hence, total assessed metal loss is 229.

Table 1-2 Summary of Corrosion Features along Pipeline and Riser (2014 ILI)
Corrosion Defect Locations
CORROSION CLASSIFICATION
Internal External
General wall loss 26 8
Circumferential grooving 4 16
Axial grooving 3 2
Pitting 91 63
Circumferential slotting 72 77
Axial slotting 0 0
Pinhole 0 0
Sub Total 196 166
Total 362

2. PIPELINE ID. NO. 2


Table 2-1 Summary of Corrosion Features
Corrosion Defect Locations
CORROSION CLASSIFICATION
Internal External
General wall loss 138 0
Circumferential grooving 171 0
Axial grooving 79 0
Pitting 851 0
Circumferential slotting 1364 0

Page 1 of 6
Corrosion Defect Locations
CORROSION CLASSIFICATION
Internal External
Axial slotting 1138 0
Pinhole 5505 0
Sub Total 9246 0
Total 9246

3. PIPELINE ID. NO. 5


Table 3-1 Summary of Corrosion Features along Pipeline
Corrosion Defect Locations
CORROSION CLASSIFICATION
Internal External
General wall loss 5540 3
Circumferential grooving 2820 0
Axial grooving 1402 0
Pitting 9148 3
Circumferential slotting 4758 0
Axial slotting 2844 0
Pinhole 23425 1
Sub Total 50207 7
[1&2]
Total 50214
Notes:
1) For multiple anomalies reported at the same location and orientation, the worst defect was chosen based on
the highest defect depth and length for conservativeness. Therefore, the total anomaly analysed is lesser
compared to the actual number of anomalies found in ILI.
2) The single features that formed the cluster features are removed. Only the clustered features were included in
the assessment.

4. PIPELINE ID. NO. 6


Table 4-1 Summary of Corrosion Features
Corrosion Defect Locations
CORROSION CLASSIFICATION
Internal External
General wall loss 0 0
Circumferential grooving 0 0
Axial grooving 0 0
Pitting 0 0
Circumferential slotting 1 0
Axial slotting 0 0
Pinhole 0 0
Sub Total 2 1
[1&2]
Total 1
Notes:
1) For multiple anomalies reported at the same location and orientation, the worst defect was chosen based on
the highest defect depth and length for conservativeness. Therefore, the total anomaly analysed is lesser
compared to the actual number of anomalies found in ILI.
2) The single features that formed the cluster features are removed. Only the clustered features were included in
the assessment.

Page 2 of 6
5. PIPELINE ID. NO. 10
Table 5-1 Summary of Corrosion Features along Pipeline and Riser
Corrosion Defect Locations
CORROSION CLASSIFICATION
Internal External
General wall loss 56 18
Circumferential grooving 12 4
Axial grooving 0 0
Pitting 8 14
Circumferential slotting 6 3
Axial slotting 2 0
Pinhole 2 0
Sub Total 86 39
Total 125

6. PIPELINE ID. NO. 11


Table 6-1 Summary of Corrosion Features
Corrosion Defect Locations
CORROSION CLASSIFICATION
Internal External
General wall loss 0 0
Circumferential grooving 0 0
Axial grooving 1 1
Pitting 4 0
Circumferential slotting 2 0
Axial slotting 0 0
Pinhole 0 0
Sub Total 7 1
Total 8

7. PIPELINE ID. NO. 12


Table 7-1 Summary of Corrosion Features
Corrosion Defect Locations
CORROSION CLASSIFICATION
Internal External
General wall loss 3 11
Circumferential grooving 0 0
Axial grooving 2 0
Pitting 13 10
Circumferential slotting 1 0
Axial slotting 0 0

Page 3 of 6
Corrosion Defect Locations
CORROSION CLASSIFICATION
Internal External
Pinhole 0 0
Sub Total 19 21
Total 40

8. PIPELINE ID. NO. 13


Table 8-1 Summary of Corrosion Features
Corrosion Defect Locations
CORROSION CLASSIFICATION
Internal External
General wall loss 0 1
Circumferential grooving 0 1
Axial grooving 0 1
Pitting 0 3
Circumferential slotting 2 0
Axial slotting 0 0
Pinhole 0 0
Sub Total 2 6
Total 8

9. PIPELINE ID. NO. 14


Table 9-1 Summary of Corrosion Features
Corrosion Defect Locations
CORROSION CLASSIFICATION
Internal External
General wall loss 0 0
Circumferential grooving 0 3
Axial grooving 1 0
Pitting 1 8
Circumferential slotting 3 1
Axial slotting 0 0
Pinhole 0 0
Sub Total 5 12
Total 17

10. PIPELINE ID. NO. 15


Table 10-1 Summary of Corrosion Features
Corrosion Defect Locations
CORROSION CLASSIFICATION
Internal External
General wall loss 0 4
Circumferential grooving 0 3

Page 4 of 6
Corrosion Defect Locations
CORROSION CLASSIFICATION
Internal External
Axial grooving 0 1
Pitting 3 3
Circumferential slotting 1 1
Axial slotting 0 0
Pinhole 0 0
Sub Total 4 12
Total 16

11. PIPELINE ID. NO. 17


Table 11-1 Summary of Corrosion Features
Corrosion Defect Locations
CORROSION CLASSIFICATION
Internal External
General wall loss 12 131
Circumferential grooving 29 58
Axial grooving 5 3
Pitting 135 90
Circumferential slotting 128 2
Axial slotting 32 2
Pinhole 549 0
Sub Total 890 286
[1]
Total 1176
Note:
1) For multiple anomalies at the same location and orientation, the worst defect was chosen based on defect
depth and length for conservativeness. Therefore, the total anomaly analysed is lesser compared to the actual
number of anomalies found in ILI.

12. PIPELINE ID. NO. 18


Table 12-1 Summary of Corrosion Features
Corrosion Defect Locations
CORROSION CLASSIFICATION
Internal External
General wall loss 0 0
Circumferential grooving 9 0
Axial grooving 1 0
Pitting 19 0
Circumferential slotting 25 1
Axial slotting 3 0
Pinhole 81 0
Sub Total 138 1
Total 139

Page 5 of 6
13. PIPELINE ID. NO. 19
Table 13-1 Summary of Corrosion Features
Corrosion Defect Locations
CORROSION CLASSIFICATION
Internal External
General wall loss 91 0
Circumferential grooving 24 0
Axial grooving 650 0
Pitting 848 0
Circumferential slotting 30 0
Axial slotting 1340 0
Pinhole 72 0
Sub Total 3055 0
[1]&[2]
Total 3055
Notes:
1) For multiple anomalies reported at the same location and orientation, the worst defect was chosen based on
the highest defect depth and length for conservativeness. Therefore, the total anomaly analysed is lesser
compared to the actual number of anomalies found in ILI.
2) The single features that formed the cluster features are removed. Only the clustered features were included in
the assessment.

14. PIPELINE ID. NO. 22


Table 14-1Summary of Corrosion Features
Corrosion Defect Locations
CORROSION CLASSIFICATION
Internal External
General wall loss 31 1
Circumferential grooving 10 0
Axial grooving 42 1
Pitting 393 2
Circumferential slotting 53 0
Axial slotting 0 0
Pinhole 0 0
Sub Total 529 4
Total 533

Page 6 of 6
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Appendix F Distribution of All Detected Corrosion Anomalies

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page F-1
1. PIPELINE ID. NO. 1

Figure 1-1 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth

Figure 1-2 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation

Page 1 of 44
Figure 1-3 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length

Figure 1-4 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width

Page 2 of 44
Figure 1-5 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth

Figure 1-6 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation

Page 3 of 44
Figure 1-7 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length

Figure 1-8 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width

Page 4 of 44
2. PIPELINE ID. NO. 2

Figure 2-1 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth

Figure 2-2 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation

Page 5 of 44
Figure 2-3 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length

Figure 2-4 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width

Page 6 of 44
3. PIPELINE ID. NO. 5

Figure 3-1 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth

Figure 3-2 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation

Page 7 of 44
Figure 3-3 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length

Figure 3-4 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width

Page 8 of 44
Figure 3-5 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth

Figure 3-6 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation

Page 9 of 44
Figure 3-7 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length

Figure 3-8 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width

Page 10 of 44
4. PIPELINE ID. NO. 6

Figure 4-1 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth

Figure 4-2 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation

Page 11 of 44
Figure 4-3 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length

Figure 4-4 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width

Page 12 of 44
Figure 4-5 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth

Figure 4-6 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation

Page 13 of 44
Figure 4-7 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length

Figure 4-8 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width

Page 14 of 44
5. PIPELINE ID. NO. 10

Figure 5-1 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth

Figure 5-2 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation

Page 15 of 44
Figure 5-3 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length

Figure 5-4 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width

Page 16 of 44
6. PIPELINE ID. NO. 11

Figure 6-1 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth

Figure 6-2 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation

Page 17 of 44
Figure 6-3 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length

Figure 6-4 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width

Page 18 of 44
Figure 6-5 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth

Figure 6-6 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation

Page 19 of 44
Figure 6-7 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length

Figure 6-8 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width

Page 20 of 44
7. PIPELINE ID. NO. 12

Figure 7-1 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth

Figure 7-2 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation

Page 21 of 44
Figure 7-3 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length

Figure 7-4 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width

Page 22 of 44
8. PIPELINE ID. NO. 13

Figure 8-1 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth

Figure 8-2 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation

Page 23 of 44
Figure 8-3 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length

Figure 8-4 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width

Page 24 of 44
9. PIPELINE ID. NO. 14

Figure 9-1 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth

Figure 9-2 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation

Page 25 of 44
Figure 9-3 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length

Figure 9-4 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width

Page 26 of 44
10. PIPELINE ID. NO. 15

Figure 10-1 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth

Figure 10-2 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation

Page 27 of 44
Figure 10-3 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length

Figure 10-4 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width

Page 28 of 44
11. PIPELINE ID. NO. 17

Figure 11-1 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth for ILI Year 2004 by PII

Figure 11-2 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation for ILI Year 2004 by PII

Page 29 of 44
Figure 11-3 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length for ILI Year 2004 by PII Solutions

Figure 11-4 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width for ILI Year 2004 by PII

Page 30 of 44
Figure 11-5 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth for ILI Year 2012 by ROSEN

Figure 11-6 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation for ILI Year 2012 by ROSEN

Page 31 of 44
Figure 11-7 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Length for ILI Year 2012 by ROSEN

Figure 11-8 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width for ILI Year 2012 by ROSEN

Page 32 of 44
12. PIPELINE ID. NO. 18

Figure 12-1 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth

Figure 12-2 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation

Page 33 of 44
Figure 12-3 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length

Figure 12-4 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width

Page 34 of 44
13. PIPELINE ID. NO. 19

Figure 13-1 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth

Figure 13-2 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation

Page 35 of 44
Figure 13-3 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length

Figure 13-4 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width

Page 36 of 44
Figure 13-5 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth

Figure 13-6 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation

Page 37 of 44
Figure 13-7 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length

Figure 13-8 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width

Page 38 of 44
14. PIPELINE ID. NO. 22

Figure 14-1 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth (Riser SEA)

Figure 14-2 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth (Pipeline)

Page 39 of 44
Figure 14-3 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Depth (Riser LWA)

Figure 14-4 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation (Riser SEA)

Page 40 of 44
Figure 14-5 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation (Pipeline)

Figure 14-6 Metal Loss Distribution based on Defect Orientation (Riser LWA)

Page 41 of 44
Figure 14-7 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length (Riser SEA)

Figure 14-8 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length (Pipeline)

Page 42 of 44
Figure 14-9 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Length (Riser LWA)

Figure 14-10 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width (Riser SEA)

Page 43 of 44
Figure 14-11 Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width (Pipeline)

Figure 14-12: Metal Anomalies Distribution based on Defect Width (Riser LWA)

Page 44 of 44
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Appendix G IC-FINESSE Assessment Results

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page G-1
1. PIPELINE ID. NO. 1

Figure 1-1 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Riser from KP0 to KP21) (2008 ILI)

Figure 1-2 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Riser from KP21 to KP52) (2008 ILI)

Page 1 of 24
Figure 1-3 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Pipeline from KP0 to KP21) (2008 ILI)

Figure 1-4 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Pipeline from KP21 to KP52) (2008 ILI)

Page 2 of 24
Figure 1-5 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Riser from KP0 to KP21) (2014 ILI)

Figure 1-6 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Riser from KP21 to KP52) (2014 ILI)

Page 3 of 24
Figure 1-7 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Pipeline from KP0 to KP21) (2014 ILI)

Figure 1-8 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Pipeline from KP21 to KP52) (2014 ILI)

Page 4 of 24
2. PIPELINE ID. NO. 2

Figure 2-1 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG, using
Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at Riser Section)

Figure 2-2 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG, using
Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at Pipeline Section)

Page 5 of 24
3. PIPELINE ID. NO. 5

Figure 3-1 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at Riser Section)

Figure 3-2 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at Pipeline Distance 194m - 464m)

Page 6 of 24
Figure 3-3 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at Pipeline Distance 594m - 1059m)

Figure 3-4 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at Pipeline Distance 1230m - 1739m)

Page 7 of 24
Figure 3-5 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at Pipeline Distance 1848m-2613m)

Figure 3-6 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at Pipeline Distance 1848m-2613m)

Page 8 of 24
Figure 3-7 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect Riser Section) (2015 ILI)

Figure 3-8 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect Pipeline Section) (2015 ILI)

Page 9 of 24
4. PIPELINE ID. NO. 6

Figure 4-1 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (2006 ILI)

Figure 4-2 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (2015 ILI)

Page 10 of 24
5. PIPELINE ID. NO. 10

Figure 5-1 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG, using
Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at Riser Section)

Figure 5-2 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG, using
Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at Pipeline Section)

Page 11 of 24
6. PIPELINE ID. NO. 11

Figure 6-1 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (2011 ILI)

Figure 6-2 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG Simplified
Method (2015 ILI)

Page 12 of 24
7. PIPELINE ID. NO. 12

Figure 7-1 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Defect at Riser Section)

Figure 7-2 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Defect at Pipeline Section)

Page 13 of 24
8. PIPELINE ID. NO. 13

Figure 8-1 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at Riser Section)

Figure 8-2 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at Pipeline Section)

Page 14 of 24
9. PIPELINE ID. NO. 14

Figure 9-1 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG, using
Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at Riser Section)

Figure 9-2 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG, using
Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at Pipeline Section)

Page 15 of 24
10. PIPELINE ID. NO. 15

Figure 10-1 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at Riser Section)

Figure 10-2 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at Pipeline Section)

Page 16 of 24
11. PIPELINE ID. NO. 17
Multiple Defects Assessment

Life = 0yrs | RD: 0.000E0 / RL: 0.000E0 mm/yr Corr. Rate | Simplified - RSTRENG

d/t %
80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Length (mm)

Depth uncertainty (%): Wall loss=+10.00 | Pit/pinhole=+10.00 | Axial groov e/slot=+10.00 | Circ groov e/slot=+15.00

Figure 11-1 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG, using Length uncertainty (mm) : Wall loss=+10.000 | Pit/pinhole=+5.000 | Axial groov e/slot=+10.000 | Circ groov e/slot=+10.000
Width uncertainty (mm) : Wall loss=+15.000 | Pit/pinhole=+15.000 | Axial groov e/slot=+15.000 | Circ groov e/slot=+15.000
v 1.0.30 | G:\3.0 Projects\4 TURF\130085.01 Enquest – Block PM8E Pipeline Integrity and FFP Rev iew\11. Engineering\FFP Assessment\NAM\24inch SEA-ANGSI\IC-Finesse (PIL 2004)\def ect pipeline riser A PIL.ddb | G:\3.0 Projects\4 TURF\130085.01 Enquest – Block PM8E Pipeline Integrity and FFP Rev iew\11. Engineering\FFP Assessment\NAM\24inch SEA-ANGSI\IC-Finesse (PIL 2004)\def ect pipeline riser A PIL.par

Simplified Method (Single Defect at Riser Section at SEA) (2004 ILI)

Multiple Defects Assessment

Life = 0yrs | RD: 0.000E0 / RL: 0.000E0 mm/yr Corr. Rate | Simplified - RSTRENG

d/t %
80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Length (mm)

Figure 11-2 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG, using Depth uncertainty (%): Wall loss=+10.00 | Pit/pinhole=+10.00 | Axial groov e/slot=+10.00 | Circ groov e/slot=+15.00
Length uncertainty (mm) : Wall loss=+10.000 | Pit/pinhole=+5.000 | Axial groov e/slot=+10.000 | Circ groov e/slot=+10.000
Width uncertainty (mm) : Wall loss=+15.000 | Pit/pinhole=+15.000 | Axial groov e/slot=+15.000 | Circ groov e/slot=+15.000
v 1.0.30 | G:\3.0 Projects\4 TURF\130085.01 Enquest – Block PM8E Pipeline Integrity and FFP Rev iew\11. Engineering\FFP Assessment\NAM\24inch SEA-ANGSI\IC-Finesse (PIL 2004)\def ect pipeline riser B PIL.ddb | G:\3.0 Projects\4 TURF\130085.01 Enquest – Block PM8E Pipeline Integrity and FFP Rev iew\11. Engineering\FFP Assessment\NAM\24inch SEA-ANGSI\IC-Finesse (PIL 2004)\def ect pipeline riser B PIL.par

Simplified Method (Single Defect at Riser Section at ANGSI) (2004 ILI)

Page 17 of 24
Multiple Defects Assessment

Life = 0yrs | RD: 0.000E0 / RL: 0.000E0 mm/yr Corr. Rate | Simplified - RSTRENG

d/t %
80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250
Length (mm)

Figure 11-3 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG, using Depth uncertainty (%): Wall loss=+10.00 | Pit/pinhole=+10.00 | Axial groov e/slot=+10.00 | Circ groov e/slot=+15.00
Length uncertainty (mm) : Wall loss=+10.000 | Pit/pinhole=+5.000 | Axial groov e/slot=+10.000 | Circ groov e/slot=+10.000
Width uncertainty (mm) : Wall loss=+15.000 | Pit/pinhole=+15.000 | Axial groov e/slot=+15.000 | Circ groov e/slot=+15.000
v 1.0.30 | G:\3.0 Projects\4 TURF\130085.01 Enquest – Block PM8E Pipeline Integrity and FFP Rev iew\11. Engineering\FFP Assessment\NAM\24inch SEA-ANGSI\IC-Finesse (PIL 2004)\def ect pipeline 1 PIL.ddb | G:\3.0 Projects\4 TURF\130085.01 Enquest – Block PM8E Pipeline Integrity and FFP Rev iew\11. Engineering\FFP Assessment\NAM\24inch SEA-ANGSI\IC-Finesse (PIL 2004)\def ect pipeline 1 PIL.par

Simplified Method (Single Defect at 15.9 mm Pipeline Section) (2004 ILI)

Multiple Defects Assessment

Life = 0yrs | RD: 0.000E0 / RL: 0.000E0 mm/yr Corr. Rate | Simplified - RSTRENG

d/t %
80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250
Length (mm)

Figure 11-4 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG, using Depth uncertainty (%): Wall loss=+10.00 | Pit/pinhole=+10.00 | Axial groov e/slot=+10.00 | Circ groov e/slot=+15.00
Length uncertainty (mm) : Wall loss=+10.000 | Pit/pinhole=+5.000 | Axial groov e/slot=+10.000 | Circ groov e/slot=+10.000
Width uncertainty (mm) : Wall loss=+15.000 | Pit/pinhole=+15.000 | Axial groov e/slot=+15.000 | Circ groov e/slot=+15.000
v 1.0.30 | G:\3.0 Projects\4 TURF\130085.01 Enquest – Block PM8E Pipeline Integrity and FFP Rev iew\11. Engineering\FFP Assessment\NAM\24inch SEA-ANGSI\IC-Finesse (PIL 2004)\def ect pipeline 2a PIL.ddb | G:\3.0 Projects\4 TURF\130085.01 Enquest – Block PM8E Pipeline Integrity and FFP Rev iew\11. Engineering\FFP Assessment\NAM\24inch SEA-ANGSI\IC-Finesse (PIL 2004)\def ect pipeline 2a PIL.par

Simplified Method (Single Defect at 22.2mm Pipeline Section) (2004 ILI)

Page 18 of 24
Multiple Defects Assessment

Life = 0yrs | RD: 0.000E0 / RL: 0.000E0 mm/yr Corr. Rate | Simplified - RSTRENG

d/t %
80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Length (mm)

Depth uncertainty (%): Wall loss=+10.00 | Pit/pinhole=+10.00 | Axial groov e/slot=+10.00 | Circ groov e/slot=+15.00

Figure 11-5 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG, using Length uncertainty (mm) : Wall loss=+10.000 | Pit/pinhole=+5.000 | Axial groov e/slot=+10.000 | Circ groov e/slot=+10.000
Width uncertainty (mm) : Wall loss=+15.000 | Pit/pinhole=+15.000 | Axial groov e/slot=+15.000 | Circ groov e/slot=+15.000
v 1.0.30 | G:\3.0 Projects\4 TURF\130085.01 Enquest – Block PM8E Pipeline Integrity and FFP Rev iew\11. Engineering\FFP Assessment\NAM\24inch SEA-ANGSI\IC-Finesse (PIL 2004)\def ect pipeline 2b PIL.ddb | G:\3.0 Projects\4 TURF\130085.01 Enquest – Block PM8E Pipeline Integrity and FFP Rev iew\11. Engineering\FFP Assessment\NAM\24inch SEA-ANGSI\IC-Finesse (PIL 2004)\def ect pipeline 2b PIL.par

Simplified Method (Single Defect at 22.2mm Pipeline Section) (2004 ILI)

Multiple Defects Assessment

Life = 0yrs | RD: 0.000E0 / RL: 0.000E0 mm/yr Corr. Rate | Simplified - RSTRENG

d/t %
80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Length (mm)

Depth uncertainty (%): Wall loss=+10.00 | Pit/pinhole=+10.00 | Axial groov e/slot=+15.00 | Circ groov e/slot=+10.00

Figure 11-6 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG, using Length uncertainty (mm) : Wall loss=+15.000 | Pit/pinhole=+10.000 | Axial groov e/slot=+10.000 | Circ groov e/slot=+10.000
Width uncertainty (mm) : Wall loss=+15.000 | Pit/pinhole=+12.000 | Axial groov e/slot=+12.000 | Circ groov e/slot=+12.000
v 1.0.30 | G:\3.0 Projects\4 TURF\130085.01 Enquest – Block PM8E Pipeline Integrity and FFP Rev iew\11. Engineering\FFP Assessment\NAM\24inch SEA-ANGSI\IC-Finesse (ROSEN 2012)\def ect pipeline riser rosen.ddb | G:\3.0 Projects\4 TURF\130085.01 Enquest – Block PM8E Pipeline Integrity and FFP Rev iew\11. Engineering\FFP Assessment\NAM\24inch SEA-ANGSI\IC-Finesse (ROSEN 2012)\def ect pipeline riser rosen.par

Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at Riser Section at ANGSI) (2012 ILI)

Page 19 of 24
Multiple Defects Assessment

Life = 0yrs | RD: 0.000E0 / RL: 0.000E0 mm/yr Corr. Rate | Simplified - RSTRENG

d/t %
80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Length (mm)

Figure 11-7 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG, using Depth uncertainty (%): Wall loss=+10.00 | Pit/pinhole=+10.00 | Axial groov e/slot=+15.00 | Circ groov e/slot=+10.00
Length uncertainty (mm) : Wall loss=+15.000 | Pit/pinhole=+10.000 | Axial groov e/slot=+10.000 | Circ groov e/slot=+10.000
Width uncertainty (mm) : Wall loss=+15.000 | Pit/pinhole=+12.000 | Axial groov e/slot=+12.000 | Circ groov e/slot=+12.000
v 1.0.30 | G:\3.0 Projects\4 TURF\130085.01 Enquest – Block PM8E Pipeline Integrity and FFP Rev iew\11. Engineering\FFP Assessment\NAM\24inch SEA-ANGSI\IC-Finesse (ROSEN 2012)\def ect pipeline 1 rosen.ddb | G:\3.0 Projects\4 TURF\130085.01 Enquest – Block PM8E Pipeline Integrity and FFP Rev iew\11. Engineering\FFP Assessment\NAM\24inch SEA-ANGSI\IC-Finesse (ROSEN 2012)\def ect pipeline 1 rosen.par

Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at 15.9mm Pipeline Section) (2012 ILI)

Multiple Defects Assessment

Life = 0yrs | RD: 0.000E0 / RL: 0.000E0 mm/yr Corr. Rate | Simplified - RSTRENG

d/t %
80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Length (mm)

Depth uncertainty (%): Wall loss=+10.00 | Pit/pinhole=+10.00 | Axial groov e/slot=+15.00 | Circ groov e/slot=+10.00

Figure 11-8 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG, using Length uncertainty (mm) : Wall loss=+15.000 | Pit/pinhole=+10.000 | Axial groov e/slot=+10.000 | Circ groov e/slot=+10.000
Width uncertainty (mm) : Wall loss=+15.000 | Pit/pinhole=+12.000 | Axial groov e/slot=+12.000 | Circ groov e/slot=+12.000
v 1.0.30 | G:\3.0 Projects\4 TURF\130085.01 Enquest – Block PM8E Pipeline Integrity and FFP Rev iew\11. Engineering\FFP Assessment\NAM\24inch SEA-ANGSI\IC-Finesse (ROSEN 2012)\def ect pipeline 2 rosen.ddb | G:\3.0 Projects\4 TURF\130085.01 Enquest – Block PM8E Pipeline Integrity and FFP Rev iew\11. Engineering\FFP Assessment\NAM\24inch SEA-ANGSI\IC-Finesse (ROSEN 2012)\def ect pipeline 2 rosen.par

Simplified Method (Single Corrosion Defect at 22.2mm Pipeline Section) (2012 ILI)

Page 20 of 24
12. PIPELINE ID. NO. 18

Figure 12-1 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Defect at Pipeline Section with API 5L X65 Material)

Figure 12-2 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Defect at Pipeline Section with API 5L X52 Material)

Page 21 of 24
13. PIPELINE ID. NO. 19

Figure 13-1 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG, using
Simplified Method (Single Defect at 14.3mm Pipeline Section) (2012 ILI)

Figure 13-2 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG, using
Simplified Method (Single Defect at 19.1mm Pipeline Section) (2012 ILI)

Page 22 of 24
Figure 13-3 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG, using
Simplified Method (Single Defect at 14.3mm Pipeline Section) (2015 ILI)

Figure 13-4 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG, using
Simplified Method (Single Defect at 19.1mm Pipeline Section) (2015 ILI)

Page 23 of 24
14. PIPELINE ID. NO. 22

Figure 14-1 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Riser)

Figure 14-2 IC-FINESSE Assessment of Reported Corrosion Features Based on RSTRENG using
Simplified Method (Pipeline)

Page 24 of 24
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Appendix H Safe Working Pressure (SWP) Plots

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page H-1
1. PIPELINE ID. NO. 1

Figure 1-1 Safe Working Pressures of Corrosion Features (2008 ILI)

Figure 1-2 Safe Working Pressures of Corrosion Features (2014 ILI)

Page 1 of 11
2. PIPELINE ID. NO. 2

Figure 2-1 Safe Working Pressures of Corrosion Features (2006 ILI)

3. PIPELINE ID. NO. 5

Figure 3-1 Safe Working Pressures of Corrosion Features (2010 ILI)

Page 2 of 11
Figure 3-2 Safe Working Pressures of Metal Loss Features (2015 ILI)

4. PIPELINE ID. NO. 6

Figure 4-1 Safe Working Pressures of Corrosion Features (2006 ILI)

Page 3 of 11
Figure 4-2 Safe Working Pressures of Corrosion Features (2013 ILI)

5. PIPELINE ID. NO. 10

Figure 5-1 Safe Working Pressures of Corrosion Features (2006 ILI)

Page 4 of 11
6. PIPELINE ID. NO. 11

Figure 6-1 Safe Working Pressures of Corrosion Features (2011 ILI)

Figure 6-2 Safe Working Pressures of Corrosion Features (2015 ILI)

Page 5 of 11
7. PIPELINE ID. NO. 12

Figure 7-1 Safe Working Pressures of Corrosion Features (2012 ILI)

8. PIPELINE ID. NO. 13

Figure 8-1 Safe Working Pressures of Corrosion Features (2012 ILI)

Page 6 of 11
9. PIPELINE ID. NO. 14

Figure 9-1 Safe Working Pressures of Corrosion Features (2011 ILI)

10. PIPELINE ID. NO. 15

Figure 10-1 Safe Working Pressures of Corrosion Features (2012 ILI)

Page 7 of 11
11. PIPELINE ID. NO. 17

Figure 11-1 Safe Working Pressures of Corrosion Features (2004 ILI)

Figure 11-2 Safe Working Pressures of Corrosion Features (2012 ILI)

Page 8 of 11
12. PIPELINE ID. NO. 18

Figure 12-1 Safe Working Pressures of Corrosion Features (2008 ILI)

13. PIPELINE ID. NO. 19

Figure 13-1 Safe Working Pressures of Corrosion Features (2012 ILI)

Page 9 of 11
Figure 13-2 Safe Working Pressures of Corrosion Features (2015 ILI)

14. PIPELINE ID. NO. 22

Figure 14-1 Safe Working Pressures of Corrosion Features (2012 ILI-Riser SEA Section)

Page 10 of 11
Figure 14-2 Safe Working Pressures of Corrosion Features (2012 ILI-Pipeline Section)

Figure 14-3 Safe Working Pressures of Corrosion Features (2012 ILI-Riser LWA Section)

Page 11 of 11
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Appendix I Details Listing of Worst Defects Based on ERF

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page I-1
1. PIPELINE ID. NO. 1
Table 1-1 25 Worst Corrosion Defects based on ERF (ILI Year 2008)

Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
[1] Surface Depth ERF
No. (m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
1 50,697.14 Internal 29 21 32 9.2 0.22
2 50,697.37 Internal 21 15 19 9.51 0.22
3 50,697.83 Internal 20 21 32 9.42 0.22
4 50,696.66 Internal 27 10 26 9.62 0.21
5 50,696.73 Internal 19 12 32 9.69 0.21
6 50,696.85 Internal 12 19 19 9.61 0.21
7 50,697.53 Internal 11 15 32 9.74 0.21
8 50,697.65 Internal 11 17 19 9.65 0.21
9 50,697.72 Internal 13 16 32 9.63 0.21
10 32,805.50 Internal 32 22 141 11.08 0.19
11 36,130.97 Internal 19 48 51 11.07 0.19
12 43,918.25 Internal 40 17 58 11.02 0.19
13 43,918.39 Internal 36 18 32 10.91 0.19
14 44,662.26 Internal 32 25 64 10.98 0.19
15 50,585.80 Internal 33 16 32 11.08 0.19
16 21,734.60 Internal 13 33 32 11.49 0.18
17 26,353.92 Internal 14 14 19 11.58 0.18
18 26,735.00 Internal 11 17 45 11.66 0.18
19 27,193.56 Internal 11 15 45 11.69 0.18
20 27,193.57 Internal 12 25 51 11.52 0.18
21 27,274.30 External 17 20 45 11.50 0.18
22 27,441.00 Internal 11 15 38 11.69 0.18
23 27,441.06 Internal 16 9 45 11.72 0.18
24 27,441.24 Internal 11 14 38 11.71 0.18
25 27,465.89 Internal 10 13 26 11.66 0.18
Notes:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

Table 1-2 25 Worst Corrosion Defects based on ERF (ILI Year 2014)

Measured
Distance (m) Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
[2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
1 52,301.69 External 19 58 67 7.71 0.27

Page 1 of 15
Measured
Distance (m) Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
[2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
2 52,301.89 External 11 12 23 8.97 0.23
3 52,317.32 Internal 23 66 118 8.90 0.23
4 52,301.57 External 24 34 17 9.48 0.22
5 52,301.69 External 15 8 15 9.16 0.22
6 52,316.56 Internal 11 16 15 9.46 0.22
7 52,317.44 Internal 12 47 31 9.50 0.22
8 52,318.58 Internal 14 42 15 9.46 0.22
9 51,717.93 Internal 12 28 28 9.76 0.21
10 51,824.93 External 10 33 103 9.69 0.21
11 51,857.93 Internal 10 30 33 9.77 0.21
12 51,873.62 External 10 21 105 9.85 0.21
13 51,898.42 Internal 10 9 15 9.94 0.21
14 52,200.53 External 10 32 34 9.70 0.21
15 52,219.17 Internal 12 9 15 9.93 0.21
16 52,219.83 Internal 12 22 22 9.82 0.21
17 52,220.17 Internal 11 8 15 9.94 0.21
18 52,220.32 Internal 15 21 24 9.80 0.21
19 52,220.42 Internal 15 18 25 9.83 0.21
20 52,220.69 Internal 10 8 15 9.94 0.21
21 52,220.78 Internal 16 15 17 9.86 0.21
22 52,220.88 Internal 10 8 15 9.94 0.21
23 52,220.91 Internal 11 17 20 9.87 0.21
24 52,220.92 Internal 11 8 15 9.94 0.21
25 52,221.01 Internal 12 12 15 9.91 0.21
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

2. PIPELINE ID. NO. 2


Table 2-1 25 Worst Corrosion Defects based on ERF (ILI Year 2006)
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
1 277.8 Internal 29 121 95 24.01 0.32
2 333.0 Internal 34 98 130 24.15 0.32
3 289.8 Internal 26 124 73 24.35 0.31
4 277.9 Internal 37 90 41 24.36 0.31

Page 2 of 15
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
5 282.4 Internal 18 176 85 24.44 0.31
6 338.3 Internal 18 150 140 24.89 0.31
7 290.2 Internal 26 106 272 24.92 0.31
8 334.5 Internal 20 134 142 24.94 0.31
9 167.1 Internal 24 113 153 24.95 0.31
10 338.7 Internal 39 69 66 25.00 0.31
11 326.3 Internal 22 120 113 25.02 0.31
12 337.5 Internal 23 113 140 25.09 0.31
13 322.2 Internal 17 140 65 25.23 0.3
14 289.9 Internal 22 109 101 25.33 0.3
15 277.6 Internal 26 91 91 25.45 0.3
16 324.3 Internal 16 129 76 25.59 0.3
17 167.0 Internal 22 100 60 25.60 0.3
18 337.5 Internal 18 122 27 25.61 0.3
19 312.2 Internal 17 119 76 25.69 0.3
20 322.3 Internal 26 83 60 25.75 0.3
21 336.9 Internal 21 96 111 25.84 0.3
22 324.7 Internal 17 112 137 25.85 0.3
23 302.6 Internal 23 87 128 25.92 0.3
24 321.0 Internal 20 97 91 25.92 0.3
25 179.6 Internal 27 76 134 25.93 0.3
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

3. PIPELINE ID. NO. 5


Table 3-1 25 Worst Defect on Riser based on ERF Results (ILI Year 2010)
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
1 21.7 Internal 23 372 78 26.71 0.17
2 108.4 Internal 24 220 201 27.96 0.16
3 106.9 Internal 12 496 178 28.74 0.16
4 7,607.2 External 22 151 484 29.56 0.15
5 104.8 Internal 10 235 106 30.34 0.15
6 7,608.7 External 23 83 297 31.28 0.15
7 21.4 Internal 22 75 45 31.61 0.14
8 22.2 Internal 18 80 50 31.78 0.14
9 104.9 Internal 10 81 61 32.34 0.14
10 70.4 Internal 11 75 18 32.38 0.14
11 104.7 Internal 7 86 210 32.47 0.14
12 7,607.0 External 13 59 118 32.58 0.14

Page 3 of 15
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
13 7,607.3 External 13 47 49 32.82 0.14
14 7,608.7 External 29 26 8 32.85 0.14
15 7,625.7 Internal 3 76 95 32.85 0.14
16 21.9 Internal 27 24 10 32.95 0.14
17 108.0 Internal 9 48 17 32.95 0.14
18 107.7 Internal 6 49 27 33.04 0.14
19 108.9 Internal 17 30 26 33.04 0.14
20 107.5 Internal 7 42 43 33.10 0.14
21 21.6 Internal 14 24 67 33.11 0.14
22 7,626.0 Internal 7 39 65 33.14 0.14
23 22.5 Internal 28 15 12 33.16 0.14
24 21.7 Internal 11 29 14 33.18 0.14
25 7,624.6 Internal 17 18 59 33.18 0.14
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

Table 3-2 25 Worst Defect on Pipeline based on ERF Results (ILI Year 2010)
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
1 1,348.1 Internal 65 139 53 18.47 0.25
2 1,801.0 Internal 45 269 44 20.28 0.22
3 2,517.3 Internal 47 232 67 20.35 0.22
4 1,826.7 Internal 41 299 51 20.90 0.22
5 2,207.8 Internal 49 184 79 20.90 0.22
6 2,417.8 Internal 52 158 71 20.98 0.22
7 2,579.5 Internal 65 95 37 21.16 0.21
8 2,629.0 Internal 57 125 56 21.20 0.21
9 2,336.2 Internal 39 312 72 21.25 0.21
10 2,604.1 Internal 63 100 71 21.28 0.21
11 2,014.1 Internal 42 227 66 21.60 0.21
12 284.7 Internal 31 746 664 21.66 0.21
13 1,331.6 Internal 42 211 98 21.89 0.21
14 2,641.3 Internal 47 159 179 22.08 0.21
15 1,829.8 Internal 40 216 55 22.24 0.20
16 2,275.0 Internal 46 157 66 22.36 0.20
17 2,206.3 Internal 54 112 81 22.56 0.20
18 340.2 Internal 31 391 534 22.57 0.20
19 2,204.6 Internal 49 133 74 22.60 0.20
20 1,351.0 Internal 33 307 53 22.67 0.20
21 2,764.6 Internal 36 243 118 22.70 0.20
22 2,442.8 Internal 51 121 95 22.72 0.20

Page 4 of 15
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
23 1,823.7 Internal 28 540 72 22.75 0.20
24 1,601.7 Internal 47 139 31 22.78 0.20
25 2,199.8 Internal 46 144 112 22.80 0.20
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

Table 3-3 25 Worst Defect on Riser Section based on ERF (ILI Year 2015)
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
1 21.62 Internal 19 56 15 37.57 0.12
2 21.7 Internal 21 48 240 38.62 0.12
3 99.12 Internal 12 32 21 39.49 0.12
4 99.85 Internal 10 78 667 39.07 0.12
5 104.40 Internal 10 55 367 39.31 0.12
6 105.35 Internal 11 114 573 37.99 0.12
7 7,735.46 Internal 10 71 31 37.97 0.12
8 7,745.78 External 10 35 23 39.50 0.12
9 7,755.63 External 10 76 480 38.57 0.12
10 7,755.79 External 10 35 15 39.50 0.12
11 21.15 Internal 10 20 13 40.35 0.11
12 52.52 Internal 10 23 10 40.25 0.11
13 99.12 Internal 10 25 12 40.18 0.11
14 99.37 Internal 10 32 16 39.63 0.11
15 99.44 Internal 10 28 16 39.79 0.11
16 99.56 Internal 10 33 10 39.59 0.11
17 100.73 Internal 11 26 10 39.82 0.11
18 103.14 Internal 11 28 10 39.73 0.11
19 103.87 Internal 11 20 14 40.30 0.11
20 103.91 Internal 10 15 10 40.50 0.11
21 104.03 Internal 11 14 10 40.50 0.11
22 104.06 Internal 11 16 14 40.43 0.11
23 104.15 Internal 10 20 15 40.35 0.11
24 104.35 Internal 10 23 20 40.25 0.11
25 104.62 Internal 12 40 394 39.71 0.11
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

Page 5 of 15
Table 3-4 25 Worst Defect on Pipeline Section based on ERF (ILI Year 2015)
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
1 5,462.80 Internal 48 356 1316 17.27 0.26
2 5,667.43 Internal 50 207 458 18.55 0.24
3 1,834.38 Internal 48 165 300 20.05 0.23
4 4,331.64 Internal 38 159 13 20.08 0.23
5 5,409.37 Internal 42 248 769 19.87 0.23
6 5,462.28 Internal 46 181 791 20.12 0.23
7 5,665.73 Internal 34 245 11 19.35 0.23
8 848.35 Internal 50 135 190 20.56 0.22
9 848.94 Internal 48 135 190 21.03 0.22
10 4,626.29 Internal 37 275 799 20.74 0.22
11 5,139.94 Internal 29 227 30 20.82 0.22
12 533.47 Internal 48 117 229 21.77 0.21
13 1,613.60 Internal 35 216 290 21.98 0.21
14 1,634.18 Internal 39 115 52 21.41 0.21
15 1,642.27 Internal 51 106 973 21.63 0.21
16 1,652.17 Internal 49 74 14 21.47 0.21
17 1,961.96 Internal 42 168 1045 21.38 0.21
18 1,996.75 Internal 53 61 12 21.60 0.21
19 4,461.70 Internal 46 87 34 21.28 0.21
20 4,654.05 Internal 28 190 14 21.68 0.21
21 4,837.13 Internal 30 308 623 22.08 0.21
22 4,842.47 Internal 30 337 1021 21.86 0.21
23 4,848.93 Internal 33 239 570 22.10 0.21
24 4,931.60 Internal 32 143 29 21.94 0.21
25 5,416.01 Internal 36 256 1316 21.20 0.21
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

4. PIPELINE ID. NO. 6

5. PIPELINE ID. NO. 10


Table 5-1 25 Worst Corrosion Defects based on ERF (ILI Year 2006)
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
1 400.1 External 21 161 41 23.08 0.74
2 3,733.2 External 31 56 44 24.13 0.71

Page 6 of 15
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
3 36.0 External 24 83 68 24.39 0.70
4 400.5 External 21 84 59 24.44 0.70
5 767.6 External 10 139 191 25.23 0.68
6 1,859.0 External 11 121 253 25.27 0.68
7 1,086.3 Internal 7 171 75 25.50 0.67
8 3,762.4 Internal 7 166 186 25.53 0.67
9 848.3 Internal 6 185 167 25.60 0.67
10 2,307.6 Internal 7 150 156 25.64 0.67
11 2,445.2 Internal 6 178 122 25.64 0.67
12 190.4 Internal 17 60 170 25.68 0.67
13 3,737.4 External 10 97 78 25.74 0.66
14 1,597.0 Internal 11 85 65 25.80 0.66
15 4,248.4 Internal 12 72 98 25.94 0.66
16 4,571.4 Internal 9 93 123 25.94 0.66
17 2,108.3 Internal 4 180 137 25.97 0.66
18 4,384.9 Internal 3 201 94 26.07 0.66
19 1,247.8 Internal 9 83 105 26.10 0.66
20 3,153.9 Internal 7 101 141 26.10 0.66
21 1,859.5 External 19 52 32 26.13 0.65
22 1,784.5 Internal 9 79 64 26.17 0.65
23 3,749.6 Internal 11 67 69 26.17 0.65
24 1,722.2 Internal 6 105 186 26.19 0.65
25 2,565.4 Internal 11 66 67 26.19 0.65
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

6. PIPELINE ID. NO. 11


Table 6-1 Worst Corrosion Defects based on ERF (ILI Year 2011)

Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
[1] Surface Depth ERF
No. (m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
1 638.47 External 15 64 29 25.48 0.68
2 618.37 Internal 13 40 15 26.65 0.65
3 619.06 Internal 17 23 15 27.43 0.63
4 1,984.17 Internal 21 18 15 27.50 0.63
5 73.89 Internal 10 18 15 27.80 0.62
6 73.76 Internal 10 13 15 27.93 0.62
7 73.49 Internal 11 11 15 27.96 0.62
8 74.66 Internal 10 10 15 27.99 0.62

Page 7 of 15
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

Table 6-2 Worst Corrosion Defects based on ERF (ILI Year 2015)

Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
1 2,116.87 Internal 14 30 114 26.36 0.66
2 485.58 Internal 14 39 137 26.6 0.65
3 878.28 Internal 14 24 94 26.63 0.65
4 620.89 Internal 16 20 69 26.69 0.65
5 1,530.50 Internal 15 20 75 26.75 0.65
6 1,985.36 Internal 15 18 112 26.84 0.64
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

7. PIPELINE ID. NO. 12


Table 7-1 25 Worst Corrosion Defects based on ERF (ILI Year 2012)
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
1 39.4 External 39 36 102 23.34 0.75
2 34.34 External 25 51 84 24.30 0.72
3 34.35 External 14 82 48 24.85 0.71
4 34.66 External 13 92 59 24.79 0.71
5 39.37 External 24 44 57 24.89 0.71
6 34.86 External 17 62 46 24.99 0.70
7 27.22 External 17 40 41 26.04 0.68
8 34.77 External 21 34 32 25.96 0.68
9 34.86 External 16 39 43 26.22 0.67
10 32.97 External 11 38 48 26.83 0.66
11 39.4 External 17 30 28 26.49 0.66
12 27.3 External 14 27 32 26.99 0.65
13 31.31 External 12 30 23 26.96 0.65
14 31.46 External 13 29 26 26.93 0.65
15 31.81 External 13 29 23 26.93 0.65
16 38.84 Internal 12 31 32 27.08 0.65
17 39.11 Internal 12 32 37 27.03 0.65
18 4.15 Internal 13 19 15 27.65 0.64
19 34.5 External 10 25 20 27.45 0.64
20 38.77 Internal 10 21 28 27.70 0.64
21 4.3 Internal 10 17 15 27.96 0.63

Page 8 of 15
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
22 30.92 External 10 16 18 28.03 0.63
23 31.56 External 11 17 16 27.91 0.63
24 39.04 Internal 11 14 15 28.11 0.63
25 39.34 External 11 14 15 28.11 0.63
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

8. PIPELINE ID. NO. 13


Table 8-1 Worst Corrosion Defects based on ERF (ILI Year 2012)
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
1 3,600.05 External 10 35 46 27.64 0.64
2 3,435.95 External 13 10 15 28.78 0.62
3 3,577.66 External 10 11 18 28.82 0.62
4 3,599.98 External 16 14 26 28.49 0.62
5 3,600.18 External 16 14 50 28.49 0.62
6 1,575.65 External 10 34 15 40.14 0.44
7 2,004.45 Internal 10 8 15 41.65 0.43
8 2,004.93 Internal 10 8 15 41.65 0.43
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

9. PIPELINE ID. NO. 14


Table 9-1 25 Worst Corrosion Defects based on ERF (ILI Year 2011)
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
1 3,792.74 External 27 26 76 28.92 0.62
2 3,800.55 External 19 33 41 29.06 0.61
3 3.43 Internal 16 34 15 29.19 0.61
4 3,792.70 External 26 20 32 29.23 0.61
5 1.86 External 11 36 66 29.42 0.61
6 3,800.67 External 23 17 31 29.44 0.61
7 3,800.61 External 20 18 38 29.49 0.61
8 3,792.25 External 17 21 32 29.49 0.60
9 3,798.81 External 15 23 28 29.51 0.60
10 3,800.55 External 11 26 32 29.59 0.60
11 3,800.74 External 11 22 28 29.66 0.60

Page 9 of 15
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
12 3,800.51 External 12 16 33 29.73 0.60
13 3.36 Internal 13 10 32 29.80 0.60
14 3.40 Internal 15 8 15 29.81 0.60
15 3,800.52 External 11 12 15 29.81 0.60
16 1,073.28 Internal 13 37 20 34.84 0.51
17 613.15 Internal 12 12 15 35.43 0.50
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

10. PIPELINE ID. NO. 15


Table 10-1 Worst Corrosion Defects based on ERF (ILI Year 2012)
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
1 4,508.92 External 21 110 73 22.31 0.80
2 4,512.47 External 16 111 85 23.30 0.77
3 4,505.56 External 17 60 12 24.71 0.72
4 4,505.61 External 11 54 44 25.90 0.69
5 275.36 Internal 11 24 18 27.66 0.65
6 4,488.07 Internal 16 23 42 27.35 0.65
7 4,513.94 External 12 25 69 27.28 0.65
8 11.88 External 10 19 16 28.11 0.64
9 4,514.00 External 11 16 56 28.04 0.64
10 4,514.04 External 11 17 63 27.97 0.64
11 11.93 External 12 16 15 28.22 0.63
12 11.94 External 10 15 16 28.40 0.63
13 4,030.10 External 11 9 15 28.57 0.62
14 1,166.09 External 16 38 15 35.67 0.50
15 3,996.10 Internal 15 11 15 41.01 0.44
16 3,996.13 Internal 13 8 15 41.13 0.43
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

11. PIPELINE ID. NO. 17


Table 11-1 25 Worst Corrosion Defects based on ERF (ILI Year 2004)
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
1 175.50 External 20 278 54 15.58 0.91

Page 10 of 15
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
2 64,227.00 External 20 194 153 16.68 0.85
3 82,232.50 Internal 16 135 41 17.07 0.83
4 82,246.70 Internal 16 113 41 17.32 0.82
5 174.20 External 23 77 36 17.51 0.81
6 173.90 External 36 45 15 17.73 0.80
7 175.50 External 21 64 39 17.85 0.79
8 82,249.00 Internal 15 72 81 17.84 0.79
9 82,283.90 Internal 9 79 123 17.95 0.79
10 82,232.00 Internal 18 45 45 18.15 0.78
11 82,230.60 Internal 18 43 63 18.17 0.78
12 82,248.50 Internal 13 50 28 18.17 0.78
13 82,204.00 Internal 12 52 83 18.17 0.78
14 82,232.70 Internal 11 53 38 18.17 0.78
15 3,098.00 External 4 203 275 18.18 0.78
16 174.00 External 17 42 45 18.19 0.78
17 82,283.40 Internal 5 64 38 18.20 0.78
18 82,273.50 Internal 6 43 109 18.21 0.78
19 51,548.00 Internal 14 99 100 18.23 0.78
20 82,250.80 Internal 14 40 50 18.24 0.78
21 82,247.30 Internal 16 31 10 18.26 0.78
22 82,248.30 Internal 10 33 86 18.25 0.78
23 82,252.00 Internal 8 47 49 18.26 0.78
24 82,232.30 Internal 10 42 27 18.27 0.78
25 82,232.90 Internal 6 49 63 18.27 0.78
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

Table 11-2 25 Worst Corrosion Defects based on ERF (ILI Year 2012)
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
1 81,819.7 Internal 15 29 15 18.24 0.78
2 81,759.3 Internal 14 13 15 18.39 0.77
3 81,787.1 Internal 10 13 15 18.40 0.77
4 81,819.2 Internal 10 13 15 18.40 0.77
5 81,811.1 Internal 10 10 15 18.41 0.77
6 81,822.9 Internal 10 11 15 18.41 0.77
7 46,550.1 External 10 50 56 18.97 0.75
8 49,853.2 Internal 12 44 30 19.05 0.74
9 25,826.3 Internal 12 38 30 19.12 0.74
10 56,173.4 External 21 23 57 19.18 0.74

Page 11 of 15
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
11 55,016.1 Internal 10 33 23 19.20 0.74
12 28,925.7 Internal 11 24 15 19.22 0.74
13 46,889.3 External 10 31 55 19.22 0.74
14 39,371.3 Internal 10 28 32 19.24 0.74
15 46,726.1 External 10 28 58 19.24 0.74
16 3,570.9 Internal 16 9 15 19.35 0.73
17 25,933.1 Internal 11 11 15 19.35 0.73
18 35,373.5 Internal 10 12 15 19.35 0.73
19 35,374.8 Internal 11 12 15 19.35 0.73
20 35,375.5 Internal 10 12 15 19.35 0.73
21 35,376.1 Internal 10 12 15 19.35 0.73
22 12,381.2 Internal 11 10 15 19.36 0.73
23 19,766.6 Internal 11 10 15 19.36 0.73
24 35,376.7 Internal 10 10 15 19.36 0.73
25 43,224.4 Internal 10 11 15 19.36 0.73
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

12. PIPELINE ID. NO. 18


Table 12-1 25 Worst Corrosion Defects based on ERF (ILI Year 2008)
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
1 26,927.5 Internal 15 42 42 23.36 0.16
2 22,706.4 Internal 11 34 63 23.63 0.16
3 14,278.3 Internal 12 31 42 23.65 0.16
4 26,341.1 Internal 12 30 71 23.67 0.16
5 26,498.3 Internal 10 32 40 23.68 0.16
6 30,665.3 Internal 10 32 61 23.68 0.16
7 12,463.8 Internal 13 28 50 23.69 0.16
8 22,951.8 Internal 11 28 51 23.72 0.16
9 5,974.7 Internal 10 28 37 23.74 0.16
10 17,368.1 Internal 11 26 52 23.75 0.16
11 9,407.2 Internal 10 26 31 23.77 0.16
12 15,668.4 Internal 12 24 62 23.77 0.16
13 19,342.3 Internal 10 26 44 23.77 0.16
14 18,411.6 Internal 11 24 42 23.78 0.16
15 22,573.7 Internal 10 25 31 23.78 0.16
16 10,757.0 Internal 25 13 14 23.80 0.16
17 24,454.6 Internal 11 23 49 23.80 0.16
18 27,134.6 Internal 11 18 14 23.81 0.16

Page 12 of 15
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
No. [1] Surface Depth ERF
(m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
19 6,957.4 Internal 10 22 39 23.82 0.16
20 8,995.0 Internal 12 20 51 23.83 0.16
21 23,123.0 Internal 12 20 35 23.83 0.16
22 28,409.8 Internal 10 17 14 23.83 0.16
23 9,247.5 Internal 10 21 19 23.84 0.16
24 18,177.0 Internal 10 21 31 23.84 0.16
25 29,744.3 Internal 16 15 33 23.85 0.16
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

13. PIPELINE ID. NO. 19


Table 13-1 25 Worst Corrosion Defects based on ERF (ILI Year 2012)
Measured
[1] Length Width SWP
No. Distance (m) Surface Depth ERF
[2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
1 20,640.48 Internal 38 123 10 16.43 0.29
2 35,449.44 Internal 38 117 27 16.61 0.29
3 44,073.72 Internal 21 260 31 17.26 0.28
4 43,910.45 Internal 25 174 23 17.47 0.28
5 26,260.76 Internal 31 124 34 17.50 0.28
6 32,528.19 Internal 32 118 14 17.51 0.28
7 44,295.82 Internal 29 132 38 17.61 0.27
8 28,792.75 Internal 20 217 22 17.76 0.27
9 44,258.29 Internal 26 145 24 17.79 0.27
10 44,261.12 Internal 18 246 34 17.85 0.27
11 18,310.74 Internal 31 194 55 17.89 0.27
12 35,684.34 Internal 27 129 15 17.97 0.27
13 43,602.02 Internal 17 245 24 18.02 0.27
14 44,259.26 Internal 14 332 24 18.06 0.27
15 39,369.40 Internal 25 295 62 18.08 0.27
16 34,903.36 Internal 15 289 36 18.08 0.27
17 44,306.07 Internal 26 130 37 18.10 0.27
18 30,903.96 Internal 29 202 56 18.12 0.27
19 44,307.59 Internal 17 209 36 18.31 0.26
20 44,259.78 Internal 26 227 44 18.35 0.26
21 31,356.44 Internal 30 99 27 18.37 0.26
22 44,258.98 Internal 18 187 34 18.38 0.26
23 44,308.81 Internal 18 186 25 18.39 0.26
24 35,227.02 Internal 31 94 10 18.40 0.26
25 32,527.85 Internal 40 65 18 18.49 0.26

Page 13 of 15
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

Table 13-2 25 Worst Corrosion Defects based on ERF (ILI Year 2015)
Measured
[1] Length Width SWP
No. Distance (m) Surface Depth ERF
[2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
1 35,328.74 Internal 38 171 34 15.34 0.31
2 35,013.90 Internal 26 223 37 16.72 0.29
3 43,947.84 Internal 22 264 31 17.06 0.28
4 20,551.57 Internal 38 103 10 17.07 0.28
5 29,672.61 Internal 25 178 30 17.41 0.28
6 43,784.74 Internal 25 173 23 17.48 0.28
7 35,564.14 Internal 28 138 15 17.63 0.27
8 44,180.68 Internal 21 208 32 17.69 0.27
9 42,743.17 Internal 20 221 15 17.73 0.27
10 44,177.26 Internal 27 139 14 17.76 0.27
11 34,782.01 Internal 16 311 23 17.81 0.27
12 28,838.00 Internal 32 187 210 17.82 0.27
13 26,168.64 Internal 31 112 34 17.83 0.27
14 30,789.72 Internal 29 123 25 17.83 0.27
15 44,134.25 Internal 18 246 34 17.85 0.27
16 18,229.86 Internal 31 193 55 17.91 0.27
17 23,064.05 Internal 22 174 41 17.93 0.27
18 44,180.14 Internal 20 197 18 17.96 0.27
19 44,132.41 Internal 14 329 24 18.07 0.27
20 44,181.79 Internal 17 212 21 18.28 0.26
21 42,071.85 Internal 12 353 22 18.33 0.26
22 34,782.36 Internal 28 108 11 18.37 0.26
23 44,132.20 Internal 18 186 34 18.39 0.26
24 35,106.42 Internal 31 94 10 18.40 0.26
25 39,248.62 Internal 18 180 39 18.46 0.26
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

14. PIPELINE ID. NO. 22


Table 14-1 Worst Corrosion Defects based on ERF (ILI Year 2012)

Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
[1] Surface Depth ERF
No. (m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
1 4.65 Internal 19 135 164 18.58 0.91
2 6.27 Internal 19 87 22 18.73 0.90
3 5.01 Internal 19 120 180 18.75 0.90

Page 14 of 15
Measured
Distance Length Width SWP
[1] Surface Depth ERF
No. (m) [2] (mm) (mm) (MPa)
(%WT)
4 5.08 Internal 22 87 58 18.87 0.90
5 6.17 Internal 19 81 21 18.88 0.89
6 4.33 Internal 23 77 77 18.98 0.89
7 8.89 Internal 16 134 39 19.02 0.89
8 4.82 Internal 23 75 61 19.03 0.89
9 5.33 Internal 19 98 54 19.06 0.89
10 8.81 Internal 23 60 30 19.12 0.88
11 7.99 Internal 15 87 22 19.23 0.88
12 8.23 Internal 20 80 34 19.27 0.88
13 14.72 Internal 18 91 41 19.30 0.88
14 8.64 Internal 17 71 19 19.40 0.87
15 7.38 Internal 26 53 74 19.41 0.87
16 53.94 Internal 12 96 28 19.43 0.87
17 5.33 Internal 19 78 49 19.44 0.87
18 7.52 Internal 16 87 40 19.62 0.86
19 4.27 Internal 17 63 17 19.65 0.86
20 4.95 Internal 24 44 17 19.78 0.85
21 11.26 Internal 19 54 17 19.78 0.85
22 59,445.57 External 14 66 25 19.87 0.85
23 4.79 Internal 32 33 51 19.87 0.85
24 10.41 Internal 16 59 25 19.88 0.85
25 4.21 Internal 22 51 54 19.89 0.85
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.
2) Defect depths are based on the reported depth as per ILI.

Page 15 of 15
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Appendix J Details Listing of Interacting Defects

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page J-1
1. PIPELINE ID. NO. 1
Table 1-1 SWP and ERF of Interacting Defects for ILI 2008
[1]
No. Distance (m) Surface SWP (MPa) ERF(Reduced MAOP) ERF(Design MAOP)
1 0.83 External 13.72 0.15 0.73
2 50,696.66 Internal 8.63 0.24 0.58
3 50,697.56 Internal 8.6 0.24 0.58
4 50,697.11 Internal 8.88 0.23 0.56
5 50,697.26 Internal 9.03 0.23 0.55
6 50,697.41 Internal 9.07 0.23 0.55
7 43,918.12 Internal 9.97 0.21 0.5
8 31,472.85 Internal 10.21 0.2 0.49
9 31,808.88 Internal 10.22 0.2 0.49
10 50,586.59 Internal 10.28 0.2 0.49
11 43,920.07 Internal 10.32 0.2 0.48
12 50,587.19 Internal 10.49 0.2 0.48
13 27,440.95 Internal 10.75 0.19 0.47
14 34,854.93 Internal 10.68 0.19 0.47
15 43,916.92 Internal 10.66 0.19 0.47
16 49,691.76 Internal 10.73 0.19 0.47
17 50,159.08 Internal 10.62 0.19 0.47
18 50,159.23 Internal 10.62 0.19 0.47
19 50,587.04 Internal 10.74 0.19 0.47
20 50,599.50 Internal 10.68 0.19 0.47
21 27,440.80 Internal 10.84 0.19 0.46
22 34,855.08 Internal 10.87 0.19 0.46
23 36,688.30 Internal 10.83 0.19 0.46
24 49,467.49 Internal 10.96 0.19 0.46
25 50,589.44 Internal 10.95 0.19 0.46
26 50,599.05 Internal 10.98 0.19 0.46
27 50,599.35 Internal 10.95 0.19 0.46
28 50,597.10 Internal 11.08 0.19 0.45
29 50,599.20 Internal 11.02 0.19 0.45
30 50,601.61 Internal 11.03 0.19 0.45
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.

Table 1-2 SWP and ERF of Interacting Defects for ILI 2014
[1]
No. Distance (m) Surface SWP (MPa) ERF(Reduced MAOP) ERF(Design MAOP)
1 52,317.29 Internal 8.37 0.24 0.60
2 52,301.66 External 8.46 0.24 0.59
3 4,585.07 Internal 16.96 0.12 0.59
4 4,589.86 Internal 17.09 0.12 0.59
5 52,301.36 External 8.75 0.23 0.57
6 52,316.68 Internal 8.75 0.23 0.57

Page 1 of 9
[1]
No. Distance (m) Surface SWP (MPa) ERF(Reduced MAOP) ERF(Design MAOP)
7 52,316.38 Internal 8.82 0.23 0.57
8 52,317.44 Internal 8.88 0.23 0.56
9 52,316.23 Internal 8.98 0.23 0.56
10 52,316.83 Internal 8.98 0.23 0.56
11 52,301.81 External 9.06 0.23 0.55
12 52,317.74 Internal 9.07 0.23 0.55
13 52,318.34 Internal 9.08 0.23 0.55
14 52,220.70 Internal 9.14 0.22 0.55
15 52,317.59 Internal 9.16 0.22 0.55
16 52,220.25 Internal 9.19 0.22 0.54
17 52,220.85 Internal 9.24 0.22 0.54
18 52,316.53 Internal 9.24 0.22 0.54
19 52,318.49 Internal 9.24 0.22 0.54
20 52,316.08 Internal 9.31 0.22 0.54
21 52,220.10 Internal 9.36 0.22 0.53
22 52,220.55 Internal 9.38 0.22 0.53
23 52,221.00 Internal 9.4 0.22 0.53
24 52,233.02 Internal 9.41 0.22 0.53
25 52,233.17 Internal 9.41 0.22 0.53
26 52,221.15 Internal 9.44 0.22 0.53
27 52,232.71 Internal 9.46 0.22 0.53
28 52,234.67 Internal 9.46 0.22 0.53
29 52,220.40 Internal 9.47 0.22 0.53
30 52,222.05 Internal 9.49 0.22 0.53
31 52,305.42 Internal 9.52 0.22 0.53
32 52,305.57 Internal 9.52 0.22 0.53
33 24,500.50 Internal 10.09 0.2 0.5
34 22,286.49 Internal 10.53 0.19 0.47
35 24,281.79 Internal 10.57 0.19 0.47
36 22,804.58 Internal 10.75 0.19 0.47
37 45,612.99 External 10.77 0.19 0.46
38 24,281.94 Internal 10.8 0.19 0.46
39 45,612.84 External 10.82 0.19 0.46
40 45,614.49 External 10.9 0.19 0.46
41 45,611.49 External 10.91 0.19 0.46
42 45,962.84 Internal 10.95 0.19 0.46
43 45,962.99 Internal 10.95 0.19 0.46
44 22,286.64 Internal 10.96 0.19 0.46
45 23,383.06 Internal 11.03 0.19 0.45
46 23,383.21 Internal 11.03 0.19 0.45
47 33,947.79 Internal 11.16 0.18 0.45
48 24,210.44 External 11.22 0.18 0.45
49 29,121.10 Internal 11.23 0.18 0.45

Page 2 of 9
[1]
No. Distance (m) Surface SWP (MPa) ERF(Reduced MAOP) ERF(Design MAOP)
50 45,286.28 External 11.27 0.18 0.44
51 45,607.74 External 11.27 0.18 0.44
52 45,607.89 External 11.27 0.18 0.44
53 45,290.93 External 11.28 0.18 0.44
54 45,614.80 External 11.29 0.18 0.44
55 29,121.25 Internal 11.3 0.18 0.44
56 45,614.65 External 11.3 0.18 0.44
57 39,192.68 External 11.32 0.18 0.44
58 39,196.13 External 11.34 0.18 0.44
59 39,196.28 External 11.34 0.18 0.44
60 39,199.44 External 11.34 0.18 0.44
61 45,513.40 External 11.34 0.18 0.44
62 45,612.69 External 11.34 0.18 0.44
63 45,614.34 External 11.35 0.18 0.44
64 44,216.45 Internal 11.38 0.18 0.44
65 29,280.78 Internal 11.41 0.18 0.44
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.

2. PIPELINE ID. NO. 2


Table 2-1 SWP and ERF of Interacting Defects
[1]
No. Distance (m) Surface SWP (MPa) ERF(Reduced MAOP) ERF(Design MAOP)
1 302.14 Internal 20.40 0.38 1.17
2 337.84 Internal 20.44 0.37 1.17
3 277.41 Internal 20.78 0.37 1.15
4 332.00 Internal 20.94 0.37 1.14
5 166.82 Internal 21.22 0.36 1.13
6 334.10 Internal 21.25 0.36 1.13
7 312.17 Internal 21.59 0.35 1.11
8 338.30 Internal 21.94 0.35 1.09
9 335.74 Internal 22.01 0.35 1.09
10 336.67 Internal 22.18 0.35 1.08
11 333.64 Internal 22.59 0.34 1.06
12 333.17 Internal 22.79 0.34 1.05
13 321.97 Internal 22.83 0.34 1.05
14 335.50 Internal 22.92 0.33 1.04
15 289.77 Internal 23.00 0.33 1.04
16 333.40 Internal 23.08 0.33 1.04
17 343.21 Internal 23.10 0.33 1.04
18 179.19 Internal 23.17 0.33 1.03
19 335.04 Internal 23.20 0.33 1.03
20 337.37 Internal 23.20 0.33 1.03

Page 3 of 9
[1]
No. Distance (m) Surface SWP (MPa) ERF(Reduced MAOP) ERF(Design MAOP)
21 332.94 Internal 23.20 0.33 1.03
22 313.11 Internal 23.24 0.33 1.03
23 312.41 Internal 23.32 0.33 1.03
24 337.14 Internal 23.32 0.33 1.03
25 334.57 Internal 23.36 0.33 1.02
26 335.27 Internal 23.39 0.33 1.02
27 337.61 Internal 23.41 0.33 1.02
28 282.08 Internal 23.43 0.33 1.02
29 314.74 Internal 23.53 0.33 1.02
30 340.41 Internal 23.54 0.33 1.02
31 332.47 Internal 23.55 0.33 1.02
32 340.64 Internal 23.59 0.32 1.01
33 332.71 Internal 23.61 0.32 1.01
34 313.81 Internal 23.63 0.32 1.01
35 332.24 Internal 23.63 0.32 1.01
36 338.07 Internal 23.66 0.32 1.01
37 335.97 Internal 23.71 0.32 1.01
38 307.28 Internal 23.73 0.32 1.01
39 191.32 Internal 23.77 0.32 1.01
40 343.67 Internal 23.80 0.32 1.01
41 281.38 Internal 23.82 0.32 1.00
42 341.34 Internal 23.82 0.32 1.00
43 344.14 Internal 23.85 0.32 1.00
44 313.58 Internal 23.87 0.32 1.00
45 334.81 Internal 23.88 0.32 1.00
46 277.65 Internal 23.89 0.32 1.00
47 307.04 Internal 23.91 0.32 1.00
48 321.27 Internal 23.95 0.32 1.00
49 345.07 Internal 23.96 0.32 1.00
50 311.01 Internal 24.02 0.32 1.00
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.

3. PIPELINE ID. NO. 5


Table 3-1 SWP and ERF of 10 Worst Interacting Defects [2010]
[1]
No. Distance (m) Surface SWP (MPa) ERF(Reduced MAOP) ERF(Design MAOP)
1 1,347.66 Internal 18.50 0.25 1.29
2 1,330.84 Internal 19.00 0.24 1.26
3 1,347.89 Internal 19.61 0.23 1.22
4 2,945.23 Internal 19.92 0.23 1.20
5 2,640.89 Internal 20.20 0.22 1.18
6 1,584.73 Internal 20.58 0.22 1.16

Page 4 of 9
[1]
No. Distance (m) Surface SWP (MPa) ERF(Reduced MAOP) ERF(Design MAOP)
7 224.07 Internal 20.66 0.22 1.16
8 1,787.95 Internal 20.72 0.22 1.15
9 2,998.96 Internal 20.75 0.22 1.15
10 1,370.55 Internal 20.97 0.22 1.14
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.

Table 3-2 SWP and ERF of 10 Worst Interacting Defects [2015]


[1]
No. Distance (m) Surface SWP (MPa) ERF(Reduced MAOP) ERF(Design MAOP)
1 224.29 Internal 19.11 0.24 1.25
2 179.67 Internal 19.96 0.23 1.20
3 179.90 Internal 20.05 0.23 1.19
4 185.75 Internal 21.52 0.21 1.11
5 232.24 Internal 21.80 0.21 1.10
6 174.30 Internal 21.98 0.21 1.09
7 217.52 Internal 22.00 0.21 1.09
8 225.46 Internal 22.06 0.21 1.08
9 230.37 Internal 22.30 0.20 1.07
10 173.36 Internal 22.37 0.20 1.07
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.

4. PIPELINE ID. NO. 6


No interacting defects.

5. PIPELINE ID. NO. 10


Table 5-1 SWP and ERF of Interacting Defects
[1]
No. Distance (m) Surface SWP (MPa) ERF(Reduced MAOP) ERF(Design MAOP)
1 767.25 External 25.97 0.66 0.92
2 4,198.62 Internal 26.26 0.65 0.91
3 2,637.69 External 26.34 0.65 0.91
4 2,792.73 Internal 27.42 0.62 0.87
5 2,220.28 Internal 27.70 0.62 0.86
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.

6. PIPELINE ID. NO. 11


No interacting defects.

Page 5 of 9
7. PIPELINE ID. NO. 12
Table 7-1 SWP and ERF of Interacting Defects
[1]
No. Distance (m) Surface SWP (MPa) ERF(Reduced MAOP) ERF(Design MAOP)
1 27.19 External 24.03 0.73 1.00
2 4.30 External 26.25 0.67 0.92
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.

8. PIPELINE ID. NO. 13


No interacting defects.

9. PIPELINE ID. NO. 14


Table 9-1 SWP and ERF of Interacting Defects
[1]
No. Distance (m) Surface SWP (MPa) ERF(Reduced MAOP) ERF(Design MAOP)
1 3,800.39 External 25.54 0.70 0.94
2 3,792.48 External 25.90 0.69 0.92
3 3,792.61 External 25.90 0.69 0.92
4 3.18 Internal 26.53 0.67 0.90
5 3,800.52 External 27.06 0.66 0.88
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.

10. PIPELINE ID. NO. 15


Table 10-1 SWP and ERF of Interacting Defects
[1]
No. Distance (m) Surface SWP (MPa) ERF(Reduced MAOP) ERF(Design MAOP)
1 4,513.85 External 23.47 0.76 0.66
2 3,995.96 External 37.23 0.48 0.42
3 3,996.06 External 37.23 0.48 0.42
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.

11. PIPELINE ID. NO. 17


Table 11-1 SWP and ERF of Interacting Defects for ILI 2012
[1]
No. Distance (m) Surface SWP (MPa) ERF(Reduced MAOP) ERF(Design MAOP)
1 81,672.07 Internal 24.57 0.58 0.61
2 81,673.24 Internal 24.89 0.57 0.60
3 81,672.95 Internal 24.94 0.57 0.60

Page 6 of 9
[1]
No. Distance (m) Surface SWP (MPa) ERF(Reduced MAOP) ERF(Design MAOP)
4 81,672.36 Internal 24.98 0.57 0.60
5 81,670.91 Internal 25.00 0.57 0.60
6 81,673.53 Internal 25.04 0.57 0.60
7 81,671.78 Internal 25.14 0.56 0.60
8 81,667.42 Internal 25.20 0.56 0.60
9 81,666.84 Internal 25.21 0.56 0.60
10 81,667.13 Internal 25.22 0.56 0.59
11 81,674.11 Internal 25.23 0.56 0.59
12 81,672.66 Internal 25.33 0.56 0.59
13 81,669.17 Internal 25.33 0.56 0.59
14 81,668.87 Internal 25.36 0.56 0.59
15 81,667.71 Internal 25.37 0.56 0.59
16 81,668.00 Internal 25.39 0.56 0.59
17 81,671.49 Internal 25.40 0.56 0.59
18 81,668.58 Internal 25.40 0.56 0.59
19 81,668.29 Internal 25.42 0.56 0.59
20 81,666.55 Internal 25.47 0.56 0.59
21 81,669.46 Internal 25.52 0.55 0.59
22 81,671.20 Internal 25.53 0.55 0.59
23 81,670.33 Internal 25.59 0.55 0.59
24 81,669.75 Internal 25.59 0.55 0.59
25 81,670.62 Internal 25.60 0.55 0.59
26 81,670.04 Internal 25.64 0.55 0.59
27 81,673.82 Internal 25.65 0.55 0.58
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.

Table 11-2 SWP and ERF of Interacting Defects for ILI 2004
[1]
No. Distance (m) Surface SWP (MPa) ERF(Reduced MAOP) ERF(Design MAOP)
1 173.9 External 15.88 0.89 0.94
2 82,232.12 Internal 16.16 0.88 0.93
3 82,246.37 Internal 16.52 0.86 0.91
4 82,248.70 Internal 16.63 0.85 0.90
5 3,098.274 External 16.85 0.84 0.89
6 82,232.41 Internal 16.87 0.84 0.89
7 82,246.96 Internal 17.05 0.83 0.88
8 62,593.57 Internal 17.05 0.83 0.88
9 82,248.12 Internal 17.09 0.83 0.88
10 82,258.30 Internal 17.14 0.83 0.88
11 82,250.45 Internal 17.15 0.83 0.87
12 82,231.83 Internal 17.17 0.82 0.87
13 82,247.83 Internal 17.21 0.82 0.87
14 82,230.38 Internal 17.22 0.82 0.87

Page 7 of 9
[1]
No. Distance (m) Surface SWP (MPa) ERF(Reduced MAOP) ERF(Design MAOP)
15 82,283.60 Internal 17.26 0.82 0.87
16 82,247.54 Internal 17.29 0.82 0.87
17 82,283.31 Internal 17.30 0.82 0.87
18 82,252.19 Internal 17.32 0.82 0.87
19 82,252.48 Internal 17.35 0.82 0.86
20 82,249.57 Internal 17.38 0.81 0.86
21 731.99 External 17.39 0.81 0.86
22 82,248.41 Internal 17.39 0.81 0.86
23 82,270.80 Internal 17.42 0.81 0.86
24 82,285.05 Internal 17.43 0.81 0.86
25 35,851.02 External 17.43 0.81 0.86
26 82,251.61 Internal 17.45 0.81 0.86
27 82,259.75 Internal 17.45 0.81 0.86
28 82,250.15 Internal 17.45 0.81 0.86
29 82,287.09 Internal 17.47 0.81 0.86
30 82,254.23 Internal 17.47 0.81 0.86
31 82,253.94 Internal 17.48 0.81 0.86
32 82,247.25 Internal 17.48 0.81 0.86
33 82,271.68 Internal 17.49 0.81 0.86
34 82,250.74 Internal 17.51 0.81 0.86
35 82,285.93 Internal 17.51 0.81 0.86
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.

12. PIPELINE ID. NO. 18


Table 12-1 SWP and ERF of Interacting Defects
No. Distance (m) Surface SWP (MPa) ERF(Reduced MAOP) ERF(Design MAOP)
1 10,756.63 Internal 22.75 0.17 0.79
2 14,169.18 Internal 23.31 0.16 0.77
3 1,882.55 Internal 27.01 0.14 0.66
4 1,881.94 Internal 27.06 0.14 0.66
5 4,293.70 Internal 27.16 0.14 0.66
6 4,223.56 Internal 27.20 0.14 0.66
7 4,293.50 Internal 27.27 0.14 0.66
8 4,164.08 Internal 27.32 0.14 0.66
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.

Page 8 of 9
13. PIPELINE ID. NO. 19
Table 13-1 SWP and ERF of 10 Worst Interacting Defects (2012 ILI)
[1]
No. Distance (m) Surface SWP (MPa) ERF(Reduced MAOP) ERF(Design MAOP)
1 26,260.43 Internal 15.69 0.31 1.14
2 19,149.60 Internal 16.59 0.29 1.08
3 19,320.41 Internal 17.04 0.28 1.05
4 24,829.25 Internal 17.22 0.28 1.04
5 23,461.94 Internal 17.63 0.27 1.02
6 22,117.08 Internal 17.68 0.27 1.01
7 14,820.08 Internal 17.69 0.27 1.01
8 18,249.86 Internal 17.91 0.27 1.00
9 24,225.04 Internal 18.02 0.27 0.99
10 28,942.68 Internal 18.46 0.26 0.97
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.

Table 13-2 SWP and ERF of 10 Worst Interacting Defects (2015 ILI)
[1]
No. Distance (m) Surface SWP (MPa) ERF(Reduced MAOP) ERF(Design MAOP)
1 8,646.67 Internal 14.68 0.33 1.22
2 8,647.48 Internal 16.49 0.29 1.09
3 8,653.54 Internal 16.90 0.29 1.06
4 8,517.30 Internal 17.13 0.28 1.04
5 8,473.64 Internal 17.29 0.28 1.04
6 8,653.34 Internal 17.49 0.28 1.02
7 8,517.50 Internal 17.50 0.28 1.02
8 8,621.40 Internal 17.57 0.27 1.02
9 8,647.68 Internal 17.59 0.27 1.02
10 28,942.68 Internal 18.46 0.26 0.97
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.

14. PIPELINE ID. NO. 22


Table 14-1 SWP and ERF of 10 Worst Interacting Defects
[1]
No. Distance (m) Surface SWP (MPa) ERF(Reduced MAOP) ERF(Design MAOP)
1 3.98 Internal 17.77 0.95 1.01
2 4.09 Internal 17.75 0.95 1.01
3 4.20 Internal 19.30 0.87 0.93
Note:
1) Distance of the defect is measured relative to launcher end.

Page 9 of 9
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Appendix K Matching Spans Plots

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page K-1
1. PIPELINE ID NO. 1

KP0 – KP5:

Page 1 of 18
KP5– KP10:

KP10 – KP15:

Page 2 of 18
KP15 – KP20:

KP20 – KP25:

Page 3 of 18
KP25 – KP30:

KP30 – KP35:

Page 4 of 18
KP35 – KP40:

KP40 – KP45:

Page 5 of 18
KP45 – KP50:

Page 6 of 18
2. PIPELINE ID NO. 2

KP0 – KP0.5:

Page 7 of 18
KP0.5 – KP1.0:

KP1.0 – KP1.5:

Page 8 of 18
KP1.5 – KP2.0:

KP2.0 – KP2.5:

Page 9 of 18
KP2.5 – KP3.0:

KP3.0 – KP3.5:

Page 10 of 18
KP3.5 – KP4.0:

KP4.0 – KP4.5:

Page 11 of 18
3. PIPELINE ID NO. 17

No matching span was found for pipeline id. 17.

Page 12 of 18
4. PIPELINE ID NO. 19

KP0 – KP4.75:

Page 13 of 18
KP4.75 – KP9.50:

KP9.50 – KP14.25:

Page 14 of 18
KP14.25 – KP19.00:

KP19.00 – KP23.75:

Page 15 of 18
KP23.75 – KP28.50:

KP28.50 – KP33.25:

Page 16 of 18
KP33.25 – KP38.00:

KP38.00 – KP42.75:

Page 17 of 18
KP42.75 – KP47.50:

Page 18 of 18
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Appendix L MATHCAD Allowable Spans Length

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page L-1
CLIENT

EnQuest
PROJECT

Provision of Pipeline FFP Services

DOCUMENT

Calculation for 18in Crude (SeA ‐ TaP) Operation Case (Pipeline ID 1)
TITLE
GSW 1006 v4.0 ‐ ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH DNV‐RP‐F105 [2006]

Client Document No

J P Kenny Document No

2.0 29/01/16 Issued for Comment NAB AFA


Calculation Sheet No
REV DATE REVISION BY CHK
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

Content List
Double click on any of the section titles below to jump directly to that section.

1.0 Introduction
2.0 References
3.0 Constants
4.0 Design Data
5.0 Initial Calculations
6.0 Wave and Current Velocity Calculations
7.0 Soil Calculations
8.0 VIV Onset Calculations
9.0 VIV Screening Calculations
10.0 Simplified ULS Criterion Calculations
11.0 Result Processing

Page 2 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

1.0 Introduction
This Mathcad sheet has been written in order to calculate in-line and cross flow vortex induced vibration onset and screening lengths of pipelines in accordance with DNV-RP-
F105 - Free Spanning Pipelines 2006 (Reference [1]). The sheet calculates the following span limits:
 VIV onset
 Fatigue screening
 ULS criterion (according to Reference [2]) considering both static and dynamic loading
On-bottom wave and current velocities are calculated using methodology contained within both Reference [1] and Reference [2]. The sheet is set up to perform calculations on
an untrenched pipeline configuration. Screening data is always 1 year return period wave data, and 100 year return period current data. Onset lengths can be based upon 1, 10
or 100 year data depending upon the loadcase under consideration. ULS check should consider 100 year current for operating conditions, and 10 year for temporary conditions,
it is a project decision whether maximum wave height and period should be used. Cyclonic conditions will require careful evaluation of overall velocities and dissemination of
these into suitable wave and current components.
NB
 For VIV calculations, operating pressures and temperatures are used.
 Half of any corrosion allowance should be considered - Guidance Note in Section 2.2.5 Reference [1]. NOTE THAT THIS MAY VARY ON A PROJECT BASIS.
Corrosion not considered for calculation of effective axial force [and hence frequencies, onset and screening lengths] but is included for stress calculations - Section 6.2.2
Reference [1].
 For ULS criterion check, corrosion allowance is conservatively EXCLUDED when calculating pipeline loading, but INCLUDED when considering pipeline capacity.
 For ULS criterion check, MAXIMUM wave height and associated period is considered for static loading. Dynamic loading uses SIGNIFICANT values. Design temperatures
and pressures are used.
 Simplified soils damping criteria are used for this calculation
 It is currently assumed that functional loading does not reduced the combined loading effect, refer to Note 1 of Table 4-4 Reference [2].
 Sheet is set up for single, non-interacting spans only - interacting spans require FE Analysis to determine natural frequencies.
 Sheet assumes pipe is fully restrained. If this is not the case, an effective axial force may require to be manually input for the operational loadcase.

2.0 References
1. Det Norske Veritas, DNV-RP-F105 - Free Spanning Pipelines, 2006.
2. Det Norske Veritas, DNV-OS-F101 - Submarine Pipeline Systems, 2013.
3. Det Norske Veritas, DNV-GL-14 - Free Spanning Pipelines, 1998.
4. Det Norske Veritas, DNV-RP-C205 - Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads, 2010 [with amendments and corrections as of April 2011].

Version History and Changelog

Page 3 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

3.0 Constants
Constants (no user input required)
4.0 Design Data
4.0.1 Calculation Controls No
Yes
Calculate ULS?
Interval for calculations KP  1000m
Maximum span length to be considered Luser_max  160m
(Applied to all cases)

Start KP for calculation KPend1  0km End KP for calculation KPend2  51.664km

4.1 Pipeline Mechanical Data


4.1.1 Pipe Geometry

Steel Wall Internal Coat Internal Coat Corrosion Corrosion Coat Corrosion Concrete Concrete
Pipe Start KP End KP Steel OD
Thickness Thickness Density Allow ance Thickness Coat Density thickness Coat Density
Section
(km) (km) Do (mm) tnom (mm) tint (mm) pint kg/m³ tcorr (mm) tcc (mm) pcc (kg/m³) tpc (mm) pwc (kg/m³)
1 0.00 7.50 457 11.9 0 0 0 3.6 980 40 3040
2 7.50 21.18 457 11.9 0 0 0 5 1280 40 3040
3 21.18 51.66 457.2 7.92 0 0 0 5 1400 50.8 3040

Table 7.17, Section 7 G314 Page


Global metal loss as percentage of tloss  100.% Ovality fo  1.5% Pipe Joint Length Lpj  12.2m 131 Ref [2]
full corrosion allowance

Page 4 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

4.1.2 Pipe Material 4.1.3 Pipe Design Factors

3 Material Fabrication Factor αfab  0.85 Table 5.5, Section 5 C307


Steel Density ρs  7850  kg  m Page 70 Ref [2]
Young's Modulus E  207000MPa
Material Strength Factor αU  0.96 Table 5.4, Section 5 C306
Poisson's Ratio of Steel ν  0.3 Page 70 Ref [2]
Linear Thermal expansion Coefficient 6 1
(for CRA clad pipe use equivalent expansion αe  11.7  10  °C
Material Resistance Factor γm  1.15 Table 5.2, Section 5 C203
coefficient) Page 68 Ref [2]
Carbon Steel
Define material and grade
Grade 245 Structural Damping ζstr  0.01 Section 6.2.11 Page 31
Material properties as per: Grade 290 Ref. [1]
Table 7.5 Section 7 B414 Page 114 Ref. [2] Grade 320
Table 7.11 Section 7 C409 Page 120 Ref. [2] Grade 360
Grade 390
Grade 415
Grade 450
Grade 485
Grade 555
DSS
22 Cr
25 Cr

Specified Minimum Yield Stress


SMYS  SMYS'  MPa
SMYS  415  MPa
Specified Minimum Tensile Strength
SMTS  SMTS'  MPa
SMTS  520  MPa

Page 5 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

4.2 Pipeline Coating Data

4.2.2 Concrete Weight Coating/Field Joint Coating


4.2.1 Internal/Corrosion Coating
Elastic modulus of concrete Ec  45600  MPa
Empirical parameter KP Empirical KC
[km] Field Joint Cutback Length FJ  300mm
Section 6.2.5 Page
0.00 0.25
30. Ref. [1] 3
7.50 0.25 Field Joint Infill Density ρfj  1450kg  m
8.50 0.33
51.66 0.33 Include Concrete Stiffening Effects No
Yes

Pipe Roughness Steel, Painted


Table 5.1 Section 5.4.4 Page 29 Ref. [1] Steel, uncoated (not rusted)
Concrete
Marine Growth

Page 6 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

4.3 Span Data


Very Well Defined - survey data Percentage of Pipeline Diameter used eo  30%
Span Definition
Well Defined - FE analysis to calculate minimum span gap
Table 2.3, Section 2.6.2 Page 18 Ref. [1]
Not Well Defined
Initial Span Length Estimate L  5m
(Used as initial guess for span length solver algorithms)
Span Boundary Conditions Pinned-Pinned
Table 6.1 Section 6.7.8 Page 33 Ref. [1] Fixed-Fixed
Single Span on the Seabed
Fixed-Pinned

4.4 Operational Data


4.4.1 Internal Pressure 4.4.3 Density Profiles
Operational Internal Pressure AT REFERENCE ELEVATION Poper_ref  0barg Contents Density - Contents Density -
KP
Op Design
Design Internal Pressure AT REFERENCE ELEVATION [km] [kg/m³] [kg/m³]
Pdesign_ref  0barg
0.00 834.0 834.0
Minimum Sustainable Local Internal Pressure 51.66 834.0 834.0
pmin  0barg
(for external overpressure ULS check)
Operational and Design Pressure
href  0m
Reference Elevation
Internal Pressure Profile
4.4.4 Safety Class
Operating Design
KP Note: If internal pressure profile is known, enter it
Pressure Pressure Integer for
[km] [barg] [barg] in the table to the left. If not, leave the KP From KP To Safety Class Calculation
table BLANK and specify reference Table 2.4 Section 2 [km] [km]
0.00 18.65 18.65
pressure and elevation above. C403 - page 43 Ref. [2]
51.66 18.65 18.65 0.00 0.50 High 2.00
0.50 51.16 Medium 1.00
51.16 51.66 High 2.00

Page 7 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

4.4.2 Temperature Profiles


4.4.5 Pipeline Condition Load Effect Factor
Operating Design
KP Condition Load Effect Factor
Temperature Temperature
Table 4.5 Section 4 G304 - page 62 Ref. γc  1.07
[km] [°C] [°C]
[2]
0 65 65
51.66 30 30

Note:
Operating pressure & temperature from IP report from Rosen.

4.5 Effective Axial Force


If the manual input option is selected, please fill in the below values.
Calculated (Fully Restrained)
Effective Axial Force
Manual Input Effective Axial Force - Effective Axial
KP OPERATING Force - ULS
[km] [kN] [kN]
If the calculated option is selected, please select the desired formulation below.

Thick Wall
Equation to use for effective axial force
Thin Wall Approximation

Heff  250kN
Residual Lay Tension
Free
End fixity at pipeline start
Fixed

Free
End fixity at pipeline end Fixed

Page 8 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

4.6 Environmental Data


4.6.1 Seabed/Soil Data 4.6.3 Ambient/Wave/Storm Data
Section 7.4.10 Page 37 Ref. [1]
Water Depth Variation due to Tide & Tsurge  0  m
4.6.2 Seawater Data Surge
Ambient Seaw ater 3
Water Density ρw  1025  kg  m
Depth Temperature During Density
Installation
Storm Duration ΔTime  3hr
[m] [°C] [kg/m³]
Section 2.5.11 Page 17 Ref. [1]
0.000 20.0 1025
Ic  5%
71.440 20.0 1025 Turbulence intensity over 30 mins
Section 3.2.12 Page 20 Ref. [1]
ζh  0.0
Hydrodynamic Damping
4.6.4 Seabed Properties
Section 4.1.9 Page 23 Ref. [1]
KP From KP To Soil Type Soil Type Integer for Seabed Associated Poisson's
Calculations Roughness Roughness Ratio
[km] [km] Seabed Roughness
0.00 51.66 Very Soft Clay 3 Silt 5.00E-06 0.50 Table 3.1, Section 3.2.6 Page 19 Ref. [1]

Soil Type
Table 7.3 - 7.4 Section 7.3.1 Page 35 Ref. [1]

Page 9 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

4.6.5 Water Depth


KP Water Depth 4.6.6 Axial Friction Coefficients
[km] [m] Axial Friction
0.00 70.06 KP From KP To Coefficient
5.01 71.44 [km] [km]
10 71.42 0.00 51.66 0.30
15.03 69.54
20.1 68.91
25.01 65.9
30.36 63.74
35.03 64.98
40.1 63.28
45.05 62.5
47.42 65.03
51.66 60.21

Page 10 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

4.6.7 Trench Depth 4.6.8 Marine Growth


KP Trench Depth Marine Grow th Marine Grow th
Water Depth Range
Thickness [mm] Density
[km] [m]
From [m] To [m] [mm] [kg/m3]

60.21 71.44 15.00 1000.00

4.7 Metocean Data

4.7.1 Metocean Data Input and Probability 4.7.2 Loadcase Duration

Wave Height and Period Less Than 6 Months


Significant Wave Data Input Type
Near-bottom Wave-Induced Velocity Greater Than 6 Months

Wave Height and Period


Maximum Wave Data Input Type
Near-bottom Wave-Induc ed Velocity

Joint Wave and Current Probability


Metocean Data Probability
Independent Wave and Current P robability

Page 11 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

4.7.3 Metocean Data


1yr RP Data
Mean Zero Wave / Near-
Wave Spectral Near-bottom Up-Crossing Velocity Wave Associated Bottom Wave/Velocity Current Current
KP From KP To Height Peak Period velocity Period Heading height Period Velocity Heading Velocity Heading
Hs Tp Uwd Tu θw Hmax Tmax Umaxd θmax Uc θc
[km] [km] [m] [s] [m/s] [s] [°] [m] [s] [m/s] [°] [m/s] [°]
0 51.664 3.8 10.7 0.563 90

10yr RP Data
Mean Zero Wave / Near-
Wave Spectral Near-bottom Up-Crossing Velocity Wave Associated Bottom Wave/Velocity Current Current
KP From KP To Height Peak Period velocity Period Heading height Period Velocity Heading Velocity Heading
Hs Tp Uwd Tu θw Hmax Tmax Umaxd θmax Uc θc
[km] [km] [m] [s] [m/s] [s] [°] [m] [s] [m/s] [°] [m/s] [°]
0 51.664 3.8 10.7 0.563 90

100yr RP Data
Mean Zero Wave / Near-
Wave Spectral Near-bottom Up-Crossing Velocity Wave Associated Bottom Wave/Velocity Current Current
KP From KP To Height Peak Period velocity Period Heading height Period Velocity Heading Velocity Heading
Hs Tp Uwd Tu θw Hmax Tmax Umaxd θmax Uc θc
[km] [km] [m] [s] [m/s] [s] [°] [m] [s] [m/s] [°] [m/s] [°]
0 51.664 5.2 11.7 0.624 90

RETURN PERIOD
PARAMETER VARIABLE UNITS
1 year 10 year 100 year
Height at which Velocity Given zc m 1 1 1

Page 12 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

5.0 Initial Calculations


5.1 Input Processing
Pipe Properties Data Processing - (No User Input Required)

Environmental Data Processing (No User Input Required)


Input Processing (no user input required)
Metocean Data Processing (No User Input Required)
5.2 Submerged Weight Calculations
Submerged Weight Calculations (no user input required)
5.3 General Pipe Parameter Calculations
General Pipe Parameter Calculations (no user input required)

Page 13 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

6.0 Wave and Current Velocity Calculations


6.1 Wave Induced Velocities - Based on Heights and Periods
Wave Induced Velocities - Heights and Periods (no user input required)
6.2 Wave Induced Velocities - Based on Input at Given Reference Height

Wave Induced Velocities - Input at Given Reference Height (no user input required)
6.3 Selection of Appropriate Wave Induced Velocities
Selection of Appropriate particle velocities (no user input required)
6.4 Current Velocities

Current Velocities
6.5 Assignment of Appropriate Wave/Current Data to VIV/ULS Calculation Cases
Assignment of Wave/Current Data (no user input required)
7.0 Soil Calculations
7.1 Definition of Dynamic/Static Soil Stiffnesses and Effective Lengths
Soil Stiffness Calculations (no user input required)
7.2 Modal Damping Ratios
Modal Damping Ratios (no user input required)

Page 14 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

Modal Damping Ratios (no user input required)

8.0 VIV Onset Calculations


8.1 Reduced Velocities

VIV Reduced Velocity Calculations (no user input required)


8.2 Inline Vibration Onset Span Lengths
Inline VIV Onset Span Length Calculations (no user input required)

35
Span Length

30

25

0 17.221 34.443 51.664

KP (km)

Page 15 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

8.3 Crossflow Vibration Onset Span Lengths

Crossflow VIV Onset Span Length Calculations (no user input required)

40
Span Length (m)

30

20

0 17.221 34.443 51.664

KP (km)

Page 16 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

9.0 VIV Screening Calculations

9.1 Inline Vibration Screening Lengths


Inline VIV Screening Calculations (no user input required)

35
Span Length

30

25

0 17.221 34.443 51.664

KP (km)

Page 17 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

9.2 Crossflow Vibration Screening Lengths

Crossflow VIV Screening Length Calculations (no user input required)

51.669

29.639
Span Length (m)

7.608

 14.423
0 17.221 34.443 51.664

KP (km)

Page 18 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

10.0 Simplified ULS Criterion Calculations

10.1 Euler Limit and Stress Amplitude


Euler Limit and Stress Amplitude Calculations (no user input required)
10.2 Crossflow Response Model

Crossflow Response Model Calculations (no user input required)


10.3 Inline Response Model
Inline Response Model Calculations (no user input required)
10.4 Peak Combined Drag and Inertia Loading

Peak Combined Drag and Inertia Loading Calculations (no user input required)
10.5 Dynamic and Static Moment and Stress
Dynamic and Static Moment and Stress Calculations (no user input required)

Page 19 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

10.6 ULS Criterion Check

ULS Criterion Check Calculations (no user input required)

50
Span Length (m)

40

30

0 17.221 34.443 51.664

KP (km)

Page 20 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

11.0 Result Processing


11.1 Validity Checks and Result Collation
Validity Checks / Result Collation / Data Saving
11.2 Tabulated Span Lengths

Inline Onset Crossflow Onsenline Screening


ossflow Screeni ULS
KP
Span Length Span Length Span Length Span Length Span Length
0 29.96 34.45 32.57 34.74 44.90
1000 30.12 32.95 31.24 40.74 37.73
2000 28.17 30.29 28.85 34.00 31.54
3000 27.04 28.85 27.53 31.19 28.80
4000 27.14 28.96 27.63 31.38 28.99
5000 27.23 29.08 27.73 31.56 29.18
6000 27.31 29.19 27.83 31.75 29.37
7000 27.39 29.29 27.92 31.95 29.57
8000 27.79 29.76 28.36 32.60 30.01
9000 28.16 30.20 28.77 33.24 30.50
10000 28.24 30.31 28.87 33.45 30.71
11000 28.30 30.39 28.95 33.66 30.92
12000 28.37 30.48 29.04 33.87 31.13
13000 28.44 30.56 29.13 34.09 31.35
14000 28.50 30.64 29.21 34.31 31.57
15000 28.57 30.73 29.30 34.54 31.79
16000 28.64 30.83 29.39 34.77 32.02
17000 28.72 30.93 29.49 35.01 32.25
18000 28.80 31.04 29.58 35.25 32.48
19000 28.87 31.14 29.68 35.49 32.72
20000 28.95 31.24 29.78 35.74 32.96
21000 29.01 31.32 29.86 35.99 33.21
22000 28.62 31.07 29.42 37.82 31.24
23000 28.65 31.11 29.47 38.07 31.42
24000 28.68 31.15 29.52 38.32 31.61
25000 28.70 31.19 29.56 38.58 31.80
Page 21 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

26000 28.74 31.24 29.62 38.84 31.99


27000 28.78 31.29 29.68 39.11 32.18
28000 28.81 31.35 29.73 39.39 32.38
29000 28.85 31.40 29.79 39.67 32.58
30000 28.88 31.45 29.85 39.01 32.78
31000 28.95 31.54 29.92 38.97 32.98
32000 29.03 31.65 30.01 39.03 33.19
33000 29.11 31.76 30.11 39.11 33.40
34000 29.19 31.87 30.20 39.21 33.62
35000 29.27 31.99 30.29 39.31 33.83
36000 29.31 32.05 30.35 39.32 34.05
37000 29.35 32.11 30.41 39.35 34.27
38000 29.39 32.17 30.47 39.39 34.49
39000 29.43 32.22 30.53 39.44 34.72
40000 29.47 32.28 30.59 39.50 34.95
41000 29.52 32.35 30.66 39.59 35.18
42000 29.57 32.43 30.73 39.68 35.41
43000 29.62 32.50 30.80 39.77 35.65
44000 29.67 32.58 30.87 39.87 35.88
45000 29.72 32.65 30.94 39.97 36.10
46000 29.86 32.84 31.08 40.23 36.35
47000 30.01 33.04 31.22 40.48 36.60
48000 30.06 33.11 31.29 40.58 36.83
49000 30.03 33.09 31.31 40.57 37.04
50000 30.01 33.07 31.32 40.56 37.25
51000 29.98 33.04 31.32 40.55 37.46

Approx_Results_Table  "Updated Successfully"

Page 22 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

11.4 Velocities

Current Velocities Wave Velocities


3

Velocities (m/s)
1.5
Velocities (m/s)

1
1

0
0 20 40
0.5
0 20 40
Distance Along Pipe (km)
Distance Along Pipe (km) 1yr RP Significant Wave Velocity
1yr RP Steady Current Velocity 10yr RP Significant Wave Velocity
10yr RP Steady Current Velocity 100yr RP Significant Wave Velocity
100yr RP Steady Current Velocity ULS Maximum Wave Velocity

Page 23 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

11.5 Structural and Driving frequencies for Inline conditions

Structural and Driving Frequencies Inline Condition Structural and Driving Frequencies Cross Flow
0.9

1.1
0.8
Frequency (1/s)

Frequency (1/s)
1
0.7

0.9 0.6

0.8 0.5

0.7 0.4
0 20 40 0 20 40

Distance Along Pipe (km) Distance Along Pipe (km)


Inline driving frequency onset Cross flow driving frequency onset
Inline drving frequency screening Cross flow drving frequency screening
Inline structural frequency onset Cross flow structural frequency onset
Inline structural frequency screening Cross flow structural frequency screeing

Page 24 of 25
GSW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GSW 1006 - ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION

11.6 Detailed Results at Specified Location


Input Location for Detailed Span Results location  0km
Extract Data for Desired Location
Location of Detailed Span Results kp_loc  0  km

Project: Provision of Pipeline FFP Services Client: EnQuest


Calculation: GSW 1006 v4.0 ‐ ALLOWABLE SPAN CALCULATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH DNV‐RP‐F105 [2006]
Maximum Allowable Span Length at Location Specified Symbol Units Allowable Length
Inline Onset Allowable Span Length LILon m 29.96
Crossflow Onset Allowable Span Length LCFon m 34.45
Inline Screening Allowable Span Length LILscr m 32.57
Crossflow Screening Allowable Span Length LCFscr m 34.74
ULS Allowable Span Length LULS m 44.90
VIV Onset Allowable Spans ULS Spans
Symbol Unit Inline Value Crossflow Value Symbol Unit Value
Effective Axial Force Seffop kN 0.00 0.00 Functional moment Mf kN.m 512.16
Onset Steady Current Velocity Uc m/s 0.52 0.52 Environmental moment Me kN.m 85.56
Onset Wave Induced Velocity Uw m/s 0.14 0.14 Design moment Md kN.m 673.10
Onset current flow ratio aa ‐‐ 0.79 0.79 Effective Axial Force SeffULS kN 0.00
Submerged Weight W sub kN/m 2.03 2.03 Design Effective Axial Force Sd kN 0.00
Concrete Stiffness Factor CSF ‐ 0.27 0.27 ULS Limiting Effective Axial Force Sd_limit kN ‐4752.29
Reduced Velocity VR m/s 1.54 2.00 Steady Current Velocity Uc m/s 0.52
Crossflow Onset Deflection δCF m N/A 0.14 Maximum Wave Velocity Uw m/s 0.00
Allowable Deflection δmax m N/A 1.44 Euler Buckling Limit m 160.00
Inline Soil Stiffness KL MPa 0.84 1.35 Drag Coefficient CD ‐‐ 2.21
Inertia Coefficient Cm ‐‐ 2.81
Submerged Weight W sub kN/m 2.03
Pressure Difference deltaP bar 11.6

Detailed_Results  "Updated Successfully"

Page 25 of 25
PROVISION OF PIPELINE FFP SERVICES FOR SELIGI & PM8 PIPELINES
Fitness-for-Purpose (FFP) Assessment Report

Appendix M Production Flow Profile

03009016001-01-PL-RPT-001 | Rev C | July 2016

Page M-1
OFFSHORE PIPELINE DATA Page 1 of 1

PROPERTIES PI Data

ROUTE (From - To) SERVICE Flow Pressure


O.D (inch) O.D (mm) W.T. (mm) Mat'l (API)
PI Tag/ Source Value Unit P&ID PI Tag/ Source Value Unit P&ID
SELIGI FIELD
1 SEA - TAP Crude 18.00 457.20 7.92 5LX60 \\KLPI01\MY.SEA.45FI180.PV 2,678.04 kL/d 45-10-020/022 \\KLPI01\MY.SEA.45PI852.PV 1,432.52 kPa 45-10-020/022
1(a) SEA - TAP (Partial replacement)* Crude 18.00 457.00 11.90 L415 \\KLPI01\MY.SEA.45FI180.PV 2,678.04 kL/d 45-10-020/023 \\KLPI01\MY.SEA.45PI852.PV 1,432.52 kPa 45-10-020/023
2 SEB - SEA (from SEB) FWS 18.00 457.00 19.05 5LX60 refer FWS Flow Data (Satellite - SEA) \\KLPI01\MY.SEA.50PI840.PV 1,980.43 kPag 50-10-008
SEB - SEA (at SEA Prod) FWS 18.00 457.00 19.05 5LX60 refer FWS Flow Data (Satellite - SEA) \\KLPI01\MY.SEA.45PT-857.PV 1,870.00 kPag 45-10-023
3 SEC - SEA (from SEC) FWS 12.75/12.5 323.9/317.5 14.3/11.1 L450 refer FWS Flow Data (Satellite - SEA) \\KLPI01\MY.SEA.51PI840.PV 1,884.93 kPa 51-10-013
SEC - SEA (at SEA Prod) FWS 12.75/12.5 323.9/317.5 14.3/11.1 L450 refer FWS Flow Data (Satellite - SEA) \\KLPI01\MY.SEA.45PI860.PV 1,062.37 kPag 45-10-023
4 SED - SEA (from SED + SEF) FWS 12.75/12.5 323.9/317.5 14.3/11.1 L450 refer FWS Flow Data (Satellite - SEA) \\KLPI01\MY.SEA.52PI840.PV 1,692.38 kPag 52-010-009/010
SED - SEA (at SEA Prod) FWS 12.75/12.5 323.9/317.5 14.3/11.1 L450 refer FWS Flow Data (Satellite - SEA) \\KLPI01\MY.SEA.45PI875.PV 1,024.61 kPag 45-10-024
5 SEE - SEA (from SEE) FWS 18.00 457.00 19.10 5LX65 refer FWS Flow Data (Satellite - SEA) \\KLPI01\MY.SEA.53PI840.PV 1,163.60 kPa 53-10-013
SEE - SEA (at SEA Prod) FWS 18.00 457.00 19.10 5LX65 refer FWS Flow Data (Satellite - SEA) \\KLPI01\MY.SEA.45PI870.PV 1,090.23 kPag 45-10-025
6 SEG - SEA (from SEG) FWS 12.75 323.80 12.70 5LX65 refer FWS Flow Data (Satellite - SEA) \\KLPI01\MY.SEA.55PI840.PV 1,578.69 kPa 55-10-010
SEG - SEA (at SEA Prod) FWS 12.75 323.80 12.70 5LX65 refer FWS Flow Data (Satellite - SEA) \\KLPI01\MY.SEA.45PI885.PV 1,005.05 kPag 45-10-026
7 SEF - SED (from SEF) FWS 12.75/12.5 323.9/317.5 14.3/11.1 L450 refer FWS Flow Data (Satellite - SEA) \\KLPI01\MY.SEA.54PI115.PV 2,272.95 kPag 54-10-035
SEF - SED (at SED) FWS 12.75/12.5 323.9/317.5 14.3/11.1 L450 refer FWS Flow Data (Satellite - SEA) \\KLPI01\MY.SEA.52PI860.PV 1,723.28 kPa