TRIAGE - risk assessment - internal corrosion is applied onto over 350,000 km (220,000 miles) of pipelines each month. Mitigation guidance proven to position field, operations teams to achieve proper alignment of chemical programs with actual hazard conditions, and with consideration of possible pre-existing damage.

1. TRIAGE Projects
Integrity Hazard Assessment &
Mitigation Guidance to Support
Performance-Based Pipeline Integrity
Management Programs
Internal Corrosion Mechanisms
Regulations are shifting the
accountability for identifying and
mitigating safety and reliability risks
onto pipeline operators
© smart-Project Management Inc. 2009 - 2019

2. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
PHMSA – Gas Pipeline Safety Rule &
Canada – CSA Z662-15 - Pipeline Integrity Framework
Conclusions: Time-based prescriptive measures
encouraged a “compliance-is-enough” response that has
proven inadequate to create sufficiently reliable pipeline
infrastructure
Recommendations: Requirements for performance-
based Safety and Loss Management Systems (SLMS)
assure industry can address integrity, risk management
hazards and implement appropriate monitoring to achieve improved pipeline
performance

3. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Summary of Regulatory Perspective on Integrity
Management & Compliance Assurance
• More must be done by both the Operator and
Regulators to ensure public safety
All involved must understand and support quality
integrity management (IM) programs to realize the
improved safety and reliability that proactive
management systems can create
Strengthening requirements on the selection and use
of risk-based direct assessment methods; Integrate
enhanced requirements for internal corrosion
management programs to rely upon more complex
engineering and risk management expertise
•
•
•

4. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
TRIAGE is the Foundation of a Performance-Based
Integrity Management Process
 Prioritizes resources to mitigate key integrity threats

5. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Project Execution Plan
1.
2.
Preassessment – PrA - data collection / application of GIS – spatial queries
Indirect Inspection – IDI – hazard classification algorithms & publish
mitigation guidance for field, operations & chemical teams
Direct Examination – DEx - identification of high-risk candidates for NACE –3.
ICDA projects
Post-Assessment – PoA – field implementation of mitigation & monitoring4.
schedules
1. Preassessment - PrA
2. Indirect Inspection - IDI
3. Direct Examination - DEx
4. Post Assessment - PoA

6. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Project Scope-of-Work
o Data collection & conditioning



DEM processing to create elevation profiles
Apply algorithms for network connectivity & production flow apportionment
Apply GIS – spatial queries for water body & road interactions
o Application of TRIAGE hazard assessment calculations
o Publication of mitigation guidance for field, operations & chemical teams
TRIAGE – Project Budget Costing Chart vs. Pipeline Count

7. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Projects – 1994 - 2019
David Richardson, P.Eng. has dedicated his 38-year career to
working with world-class teams to improve the
characterization of pipeline internal corrosion hazards, with the
objective to deliver mitigation guidance and monitoring
strategies to field, operations teams that are properly aligned
to the over-life exposure to corrosive conditions, and present physical condition
of pipeline structures

8. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Proven Performance


Applied onto over 350,000 km (220,000 miles) of pipelines each month
Mitigation guidance proven to position field, operations teams to
achieve proper alignment of chemical programs with actual hazard
conditions, and with consideration of possible pre-existing damage
 Risk-based optimization eliminates
chemicals for 20 – 45% savings
historical misallocation of
CASE STUDY –
Effective adoption of
TRIAGE delivers
improved performance
with 20- 45% savings

9. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Performance / Case Studies
 TRIAGE Client A has shifted from "a-leak-a-month" to "leak-free-for-
four-calendar-years";
TRIAGE Client B has transformed from "a-leak-a-week" to "a-leak-a-
month" during the first year of TRIAGE, now to "a-leak-a-year" after
nearly two years of TRIAGE integration

The success of TRIAGE is attributed to
leadership support, and the
willingness of field, operations teams
to accept innovation, and to apply the
mitigation guidance within a quality
performance-based integrity model

10. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Performance – Reliable Classification is Validated with Inspection Data
 75% of all pipelines inspected within hazard Group 4 & 5 have exhibited >
50% wall loss;
20% of pipelines within Group 4 + 5 have proven to be effectively mitigated
based upon standard industry assessment & mitigation methods
Only 5% of pipelines with >50% wall loss lay outside of TRIAGE - Group 4 + 5
o mismatch between pipeline performance and TRIAGE classification
triggers reassessment & adjustment of algorithms


20% Group 4 + 5
demonstrate
effective mitigation
75% Group
4 + 5 show >50%
wall loss
Only 5% of
pipelines with
>50% wall loss are
“outliers”
Note: Group 4 & 5 - Pipelines considered most probable to exhibit corrosion damage

11. TRIAGE –
Risk Assessment & Mitigation Guidance
ANALYSIS
Adoption of TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Assessment
& Mitigation Guidance
stopped pipeline failures
Direct mitigation savings
$1 million / year / 1,000 km
$6.5 million / year
CumulativeFailureCount
PennWest / Obsidian Energy Ltd.

12. TRIAGE –
Risk Assessment & Mitigation Guidance
ANALYSIS
Adoption of TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Assessment
& Mitigation Guidance
stopped pipeline failures
Direct mitigation savings
$1 million / year / 1,000 km
$2.5 million / year
CumulativeFailureCount
Bonavista Energy Corporation

13. TRIAGE –
Risk Assessment & Mitigation Guidance
CumulativeFailureCount
Whitecap Resources Inc. / Alberta
Direct mitigation savings
To be Established

14. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Methodology – Corrosion Triade


Over-life consideration of IC corrosion triade
Upstream Operating Conditions
o Steady-state operation / upset conditions / non-conforming product
shipments / fugitive fluid ingress from upstream wells & processes
Sibling association with historical failure events
Water-film transport / stagnant water accumulations / free-water /
condensing water



15. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Methodology – Corrosion Likelihood Model
 Consideration of all possible contributing factors
o Considers aggressiveness of transported fluids
 Steady state & non-routine operations
o Considers implication of episodic upset conditions
Considers water-film transport & stagnant water trap formation
Potential Corrosion Rate Accelerators
 oxygen ingress
 bacteria
 solids / debris
 up-lift of biomass sludge from upstream
well start-up events
 upstream process upsets / fugitive fluids
 non-conforming product quality
Considers detrimental water-film transport &
formation of stagnant water traps

16. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Methodology – Industry Standard Corrosion Rate Models


Considers corrosion rate for normal fluids
Considers accelerated corrosion rate associated with upset conditions & episodic
ingress of corrosive fugitive fluids / biomass sludge / debris from upstream
operations / non-conforming products & fugitive fluid ingress
NACE Corrosion
Rate Standard
TRIAGE considers accelerated corrosion attributed to ingress of fugitive fluids –
“blind-spot” hazards normally overlooked by industry methods

17. Methodology - Calculation of Corrosion Likelihood
TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Methodology – Likelihood Scoring Algorithm
/ fugitive fluid ingress / non-conforming operations

18. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Methodology – Communication of Hazard Classification Results
Not vulnerable to internal
corrosion damage – opportunity
to eliminate historical
misallocation of unnecessary
chemical use
Vulnerable to internal corrosion,
however pre-existing corrosion
damage is unlikely – objective is
to prevent corrosion initiation
Highly likely to exhibit pre-existing
corrosion damage if over-life
mitigation has not been 100%
effective – objective is to prevent
damage from growing to failure

19. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Methodology – Mitigation Response Standards (operating pipeline)

20. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Methodology – Mitigation Response Standards (changing status)

21. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Methodology – Corrosion Likelihood - Data Conditioning

22. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Methodology – Corrosion Likelihood - Data Conditioning

23. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Methodology – Failure Consequence - Data Conditioning

24. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Methodology – Corrosion Likelihood - Data Conditioning

25. ®trusted pipeline advisorTRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Methodology – Elevation Profile using Digital Elevation Mapping (DEM) Data

26. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Methodology – Network Connectivity Algorithm
Connect pipelines within a network with consideration of
spatial, physical and operation attributes

27. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Methodology – Data Validation & Network Flow Apportionment
 Efficient data collection & validation
 Application of flow apportionment
algorithm to assign oil / water / gas flow
rates throughout connected networks

28. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Methodology – Cultural & Environmental Interactions
Crossing and proximity interactions between roads /
pipelines / water bodies; tallied by feature classification

29. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Methodology – Consideration of Historical Mitigation & Inspection Activities

30. TRIAGE –
Integrity Hazard Classification & Mitigation Guidance
Contact us for TRIAGE Project Quotation
David Richardson, P.Eng.
+1 403 880-2835
david@trustepipelineadvisor.com
https://www.trustedpipelineadvisor.com/triage-ux
Note: TRIAGE project pricing included within the presentation material is approximate, and may
change depending upon pipeline network complexity, and the extent a Client may undertake GIS
/ Spatial queries by their in-house project team.
Project pricing does not include the time of smart-Project Management Inc. to support the pre-
project data collection and transformation processes within a TRIAGE project work-scope.