the SAAM pipeline-inspection tool The Pipeline Pigging, Integrity Assessment, and Repair Conference Holiday Inn Select Hotel Houston, Texas February 6-8, 2001 Organized by Clarion Technical Conferences and Pipes & Pipelines International and supported by the Pigging Products & Services Association by Gordon Short 1 and Patrick Ogunjimi 2 1 RST Edinburgh, UK 2 Brass Exploration, Isleworth, UK 3 The Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Conference, February, 2001 Proceedings of the 2001 Pipeline Pigging, Integrity Assessment, and Repair Conference, Houston, USA. Copyright 2001 by Clarion Technical Conferences, Pipes & Pipelines International and the author(s). All rights reserved. This document may not be reproduced in any form without permission from the copyright owners. Out-of-straightness detection, assessment, and monitoring, using the SAAM pipeline-inspection tool R ST PROJECTS Ltds SAAM Pipeline Inspection tool represents the state of the art in low cost pipeline inspection and monitoring technology. The tooling has been designed for use on-board standard bidi and cup pigs. The SAAM tooling has a number of capabilities, however; one of the most important uses is in the detection, assessment and monitoring of pipeline Out-Of-Straightness problems. This paper examines how SAAM can be used to detect pipeline Out-Of-Straightness and presents results of experimental work carried out in test facilities. Consideration is also given to field applications with a case study of the 12" Oil Export Pipeline in the Abana Field offshore Nigeria, owned and operated by Moni Pulo Limited and Brass Exploration, being presented. Introduction Determining the presence and severity of pipeline Out-Of-Straightness (OOS) has been a problem which has challenged pipeline engineers since the very first lines were laid. Even the early Roman engineers were concerned with pipeline straightness. These engineers invested consider- able time and effort in carrying out detailed route surveys to ensure that the natural gradients of the land were used to best effect when transporting water under gravity from the well to the user. Obviously the slightest OOS during the construction could compromise this aim. In modern hydrocarbon pipelines the presence of pipeline OOS presents a more dramatic problem. An oil or gas pipeline with a severe change in bend radius can have abnormally high bending stresses which can cause the pipeline to exceed its elastic limit, potentially leading to 4 Out-of-straightness detection failure. When combined with other factors (such as torsion and internal pressure), it represents an extremely difficult problem for the engineer to assess. Clearly when making this assessment knowing the precise shape the pipeline takes is of vital importance. The shape of a pipeline is a complex interaction between the pipeline itself (its physical properties such as stiffness) and its surrounding environment. For example, a pipeline which crosses a region of soft sand, will acquire a very different profile to a similar pipeline which is laid on firm soil. Having a precise knowledge of pipeline position is often not sufficient to determine its integrity. Having information on pipeline motion and changes in profile is of equal or greater importance. The consequences of failing to detect and rectify pipeline OOS can be dramatic. On its own excessive bending can lead to failure with the pipeline exceeding its elastic limit. Unsupported pipelines can be a hazard for others, potentially leading to accidents [1]. It is clear that detecting, assessing and monitoring the shape of a pipeline can be of critical importance to ensuring that a line is operated safely. This paper presents the results of work carried out by RST Projects Limited into pipeline OOS. It focuses on the use of the SAAM pipeline inspection tool, presenting examples of its actual use in the field. It should be noted that the theory underlying how OOS detection tools (such as SAAM) operate could become an exercise in applied mathematics. This paper, however, does not dwell heavily on the theory but rather chooses to focus on its applications. Background Many pipelines suffer from OOS. For example, buried onshore pipelines which cross areas of subsidence can become unsupported. From the surface this may not be obvious. However, when the pipeline is excavated the extent of the problem can be found. Similarly, subsea pipelines can suffer from what is known as scouring. This results in the material beneath the pipeline being progres- sively washed away. When this happens the pipeline can again be left unsupported, forming a free- span. This can become a local stress point for the pipeline. It can also be a source of other problems, such as trawl gear becoming snagged under the pipe [1]. A further factor which leads to pipeline OOS has been the development of high temperature (usually smaller diameter) pipelines. These lines operate at elevated temperatures and can suffer from excessive thermal expansion. This means that they can pop upwards and form what is known as an Upheaval Buckle. Severe buckles can result in permanent plastic deformation of the pipeline. OOS can be a very real problem for the pipeline operator. On occasions the first indication of the problem may be a pipeline failure or an incident involving a third party. As a result the ability to detect, assess and monitor pipeline OOS is seen as being an important part of the pipeline asset management process. Existing technology Traditional approaches to determining pipeline OOS can be described as being hit or miss. Many pipeline operators rely solely on the use of external visual inspections (or the equivalent for subsea pipelines) to determine when a pipeline OOS problem exists. External surveys only provide limited information on the profile of the pipeline. Visual surveys, for example, can provide no meaningful information for a pipeline which is buried. They can also be very time consuming and there may also be question marks over their accuracy. This often means that a pipeline operator who finds an OOS problem then looks for an alternative means of profiling the feature. ROVs and Side Scan Sonars can go some way to providing this information for subsea pipelines, but their resolution and accuracy are often inadequate for subsequent data analysis requirements. A second approach involves the use of Internal tools. The approach here has been to use gyro systems, or Inertial Navigation Units [2,3]. These instruments tend to be borrowed from the military or aviation industries. The acceleration data produced is double integrated to give a profile. This 5 The Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Conference, February, 2001 double integration is a major source of systematic error, and over the distances of interest, this procedure can easily swamp the signal of interest. This means that the calculated profile needs to be compared with known reference points at regular intervals along the length of pipeline. Probably the best known example of this type of tool is the BJ Geopig. It is reasonable to conclude that existing OOS technology can be difficult and relatively expensive to deploy and often their accuracy brings into question the validity of any post survey data analysis used to assess the condition of a pipeline. The SAAM approach The approach developed by RST is fundamentally different to other existing techniques. The SAAM tool is a package which can be fitted to existing pipeline cleaning and gauging pigs, rather than being a special standalone inspection pig (Figure 1). This means that any existing cleaning or gauging pig can be used to acquire OOS data. Over the past 2 years there have been a number of papers published by RST which details the theory of the SAAM inspection tool [4,5,6,7]. In summary it can be described as: using the dynamic response of a cleaning or gauging pig to the presence of a feature within a pipeline as a measure of that feature In effect the behaviour of a cleaning pig is monitored and changes used to identify features present within the pipeline. This can be extended to give a complete inspection capability (Figure 2). The above principle can be applied to the presence of pipeline OOS. This is possible because SAAM monitors changes in the angular position of the pig. Sensors onboard the unit provide pitch and angular velocity data. To date only systems with the pitch sensors have been used operationally to give 2 dimensional profiling of a pipeline. It is this 2-D approach which is discussed in detail in this paper. The use of the angular velocity sensors (gyros) is a new innovation recently introduced by RST to provide a basic 3-D capability and is discussed only briefly towards the end of the paper. Although not intended to be a justification of the mathematical basis of SAAM, it is important to appreciate in general terms the underlying theory. To do this, consider a pipeline in 2 dimensions with a change in the vertical position of the line (Figure 3). When a pig travels along this line its change in vertical position (y) can be expressed by the following equation: y = V sin t (1) where V is the velocity of the pig along the axis of the pipeline, q is the angle of pitch of the pig relative to the horizontal and t is the interval in time. In fact this equation can be simplified as V can be expressed as: V = L/t (2) where DL is the incremental distance travelled along the axis of the pipeline in the period t. Also, where the angle of pitch is measured directly using a gravitational accelerometer then the sin value in (1) can be directly replaced by the measured value from this instrument a. Substituting these into (1) simplifies the expression to: y = a L (3) This is the governing equation used by RST in determining the vertical profile of a pipeline. A simple numerical integration technique can then be used to give the shape of the feature. In order to use this equation it is necessary to have the following data: 6 Out-of-straightness detection 1. The angle of pitch of the pig (a). 2. The distance travelled (L) between each data point. The angle of pitch (a) is measured using a gravitational accelerometer. This is a device which is in effect a membrane with a mass supported in the middle. When the pig tilts the mass exerts more force on the membrane which then results in a change in the voltage. This change in voltage is then a direct measure of the angle of pitch. The angle itself is automatically resolved into its gravitational (vertical) component meaning that it is in fact the sinq value. The second value used in (3) is the distance travelled in the incremental time t. t is set to equal the sample rate used by the SAAM unit. Typically for SAAM L is of the order of 5-10cm. L is actually calculated from the known distance between two points, such as girth welds, divided by the sample rate of the tool. Using these two values the localised vertical profile of the pipeline can be determined. Sources of error In common with other OOS tools the main limitation with SAAM is its accuracy. The are many potential sources of error associated with this type of technology. The most common are discussed below. Pipe joint length Standard pipe joints are specified at 12.2m (40ft). In reality a wide range of factors will combine to give a spread of lengths covering a range of a metre or so. Typically this means that every pipe joint can have an implicit error of the order of +/-0.5m, which equates to about 4% of the length. Where this is not accounted for it will feed directly into an equivalent error in the generated vertical profile. However, this error can be dramatically reduced using techniques developed by RST, where differences in pipe spool length can be clearly identified. Furthermore, where a detailed pipe tally is available (or can be obtained from field measurements) it can be effectively eliminated as a source of error. It should be noted that an error in pipe joint length does NOT change the calculated minimum bend radii as the error applies in proportion to both the vertical and horizontal distances. Discussion of how SAAM detects girth welds and from this derives pig velocity and pipe joint length is given in [4,5,6]. Pig attitude Any change in the attitude of a pig travelling through an OOS feature will result in a significant error in the measured profile. The most likely changes in pig attitude are pitch and rotation. Pitch problems tend to be associated with the presence of in-line debris, such as wax. Where this is present it tends to be found locally and only in certain types of pipelines. Where necessary it can be minimised by pre-cleaning the line. The second type of attitude error is to do with pig rotation. As it is not possible to position a SAAM unit in a pig body precisely co-linear with the axis of the pipeline, then any rotation over a short distance of the line can give a signature similar to that of an OOS problem. From RSTs experience this has never been observed and RST believes that if pig rotation does occur in straight pipe sections then its period is far greater than that which would affect the quality of a typical OOS feature. This is supported by the preliminary results of the 3-D SAAM tool, discussed towards the end of the paper. Impact loading Any significant impact will be detected by the accelerometer used to measure the angle of tilt of the pipeline. Impacts result from the pig coming into contact with some obstruction within the pipeline. The severity of this impact will mainly depend upon on three factors, pig speed, size of the obstruction and line diameter. Generally, the faster the pig, the smaller the diameter and the more 7 The Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Conference, February, 2001 severe the obstruction, then the greater the measured impact. From experience it has been found that in-line features such as girth welds will not normally cause an impact with a corresponding change in linear velocity, but will instead show up as vibration [4,5]. However, where the pipeline suffers from, for example a dent then this will be detected. Techniques have been developed by RST for handling impacts. Lateral pipe displacement Probably the single most significant error associated with the 2-D SAAM method, is the impact of any lateral displacement of the pipeline. In effect should the pipeline be offset at an angle to the vertical then this will compromise the results of the survey. The accelerometer used to measure the angle of tilt will only measure the vertical component. When this is combined with a rotation of the pipeline it will under estimate the true change in alignment. The measured value understates the true value by the Cosine of the angle of rotation. From experience RST has found that small rotations of the order of 5 from the vertical do not generate any significant error, and up to 10 the results are generally acceptable. Values greater than this have to be taken on a case by case basis. The error which results causes the SAAM method to understate the minimum bend radii and overstate the length of the feature, in effect making the feature longer and shallower. In practice there is no easy way to determine from the SAAM data whether the pipeline OOS is vertical or offset at some angle. Again, from experience it has been found possible to determine if this has occurred by comparing the calculated SAAM horizontal distance over the length of a feature, with true measured distances (say taken from a GPS). Where the SAAM distance is significantly longer then this would suggest that the OOS feature is actually offset as some angle, rather than being vertical. It is this limitation with the 2-D method that is one of the drivers behind the development of the 3-D capability discussed later in this paper. It should be noted that any change in horizontal direction of the pipeline that is not associated with rotation, such as horizontal bend, will NOT directly effect the calculated vertical profile. Reference points The SAAM profiling technique relies upon having known local reference points (start and end points) which relate the pipeline to the real world. In the case of the 2-D SAAM method accurate vertical distances are required, whether these are above or below sea level. Where pipeline movement is the main concern an agreed reference level can be taken and used for all subsequent analysis and so changes in the pipeline shape will be clearly recognisable and consistent relative to the chosen fixed point. In this case the need for accurate reference points can be avoided. Drift and integration error Measuring devices such as accelerometers and gyros are well know to suffer from drift. This can be very significant if not understood and handled. The instrument used on SAAM has been selected so that this has the minimum impact. Under test, this instrument has been shown to have a negligible drift over a period of days (typical for a survey). It was also found that drift cannot be measured over the time taken to transit typical OOS features. This is very important because the process of integration compounds any drift error, and those detection methods that require a double integration further exaggerate this problem. SAAM only requires a single integration. In addition the time step Dt (which equates to the sample rate of the SAAM unit) has been selected by testing to minimise this error. The combination of the selected instrument, the single integration process and selected sample rate have all but eliminated drift and integration errors over typical OOS features using SAAM. 8 Out-of-straightness detection Validation With any new measurement technique it is vital to validate and prove the methodology. The use of SAAM to determine pipeline OOS is no different. The validation carried out by RST has taken 2 forms. Firstly, the use of loop tests and secondly, field trials. Loop tests RST has carried out extensive loop trials over the past 5 years. These trials have had a variety of aims, from basic research purposes, to fault finding, through to specific OOS tests. In addition RST has adopted a policy of loop testing all of its SAAM units prior to shipping them into the field. As a result a very large database of information has been developed. At the time of writing this paper RST has over 1400 sets of individual loop data. In the vast majority of cases the SAAM unit involved has been deployed with the capability of measuring pipeline tilt and often they have been run through test sections with a known change in vertical profile. Analysis of this loop data has been carried out in order to assess and validate the capabilities of the SAAM tooling at measuring pipeline OOS. An example of part of this assessment is shown on Figure 4. In this case the test section of the flow loop is approximately 35m long with a change in elevation of 1.45m. The start and end points are at the same elevation and the distance between the pipe flanges is known. The data is taken from pigs with disks that had different amounts of wear. In this case 37 loops of data from the one test are presented. All of the data were found to be within +/-7.5cm of the known vertical value. Field trials Testing was carried out in pipelines within known OOS features. These pipelines were selected on the basis of being relative stable with little or no pipeline movement expected. The results of these trials confirmed the capabilities of SAAM. It was found that for all of the test cases the vertical OOS could be classified within +/-0.09% of the horizontal distance travelled and that an accuracy of +/- 0.05% was achievable in 80% of the cases. This is comparable with other mapping tools [2,3]. It was also possible to compare some of the SAAM generated data with other data. An example of this is given in Figure 5. This shows that there is a relatively good tie-in between the SAAM data and that acquired from a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV), and where there are significantly divergences the error has subsequently been tracked down to limitations with the ROV data rather than with SAAM. Case study Abana 12-in oil-export pipeline, Nigeria So far the paper has concentrated on detailing the overall theory, testing and validation of the SAAM measuring technique. This part of the paper now focuses on the application of the technology with a case study of the Abana 12 Oil Export pipeline, offshore Nigeria being presented. Field description The Abana field is located in block OPL230 offshore Nigeria. Moni Pulo Limited, an indigenous Nigeria oil company, is the majority interest holder in the Block. Brass Exploration is a wholly owned subsidiary of Baker Hughes E & P Solutions and is technical partner to Moni Pulo Limited on block OPL230. Installed in 1998 the Abana Field comprises the Abana West Facility, Abana East Facility, the Abana Water Injection Facility and a 12 oil export pipeline. The layout of the field is shown on Figure 6, and can be summarised as follows. Abana West is connected to Abana East by an 8 oil 9 The Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Conference, February, 2001 flowline, an 8 test line, a 4 gas flowline and a 4test flowline. Production is delivered through these lines to Abana East. The product is treated at Abana East on a floating production facility and is then exported via a 12, 40km oil pipeline to a third party platform. Injection water is supplied to the Water Injection Facility from Abana East via an 8" line. In partnership with Moni Pulo Ltd, Brass Exploration were responsible for the construction of the facilities and are now responsible for day to day operation of the field including the 12 oil export pipeline. Application Of particular concern to Brass Exploration is the stability of the 12 oil export pipeline from field. Clearly, this is of strategic importance as it is the sole export route. When constructed the line was trenched and covered with an unknown quantity of silt. The stability of this line is complicated by the fact that it was laid in an estuary effectively at right angles to the current. The currents in this estuary are known to be very strong, ranging from 3 4 knots in the spring, to 8 10 knots during the rainy season. It was feared that these currents could cause erosion of the seabed around the pipeline causing it to change shape. In particular it was felt that the line may become unsupported in places, causing it to sag and become over-stressed. Brass wanted to know what the status of the line was post construction, whether there were any locations where the pipeline was bending excessively and then to monitor its shape at regular intervals to assess whether it was in fact changing. Proposed solution RST were approach by Brass with a view of using SAAM as the routine monitoring tool. After much discussion it was concluded that SAAM could be used to monitor both the 8 flowline and the main 12 oil export pipeline. At that time RST could only operate SAAM down to 10 and as such the unit needed to be re-engineered in order to be deployed successfully in the 8 lines. This aspect of the development is discussed elsewhere [8]. Schedule The project KOd in August 1998 and the development of the special SAAM system was completed during December of the same year. RST supplied the SAAM unit, carrier pigs for the 8 and 12 lines and operator training for Brass personnel. In common with all of RSTs systems, the system supplied to Brass was designed to be deployed within a cleaning pig. The pig supplied was designed by RST, but was in effect a standard BIDI type pig (Figure 7) with its body cavity specially modified in order to house the SAAM system. The first survey using the tooling was carried out during July 1999. Survey The results of the first survey provided good quality data to benchmark the line. From this a number of features were identified as being significant and were profiled. It was found that none of these exceed the expected limits for features in a pipeline of this size. For each the profile, location and minimum radius of curvature were determined. An example is given in Figure 8. In this case the raw data (angle of tilt and vibration) are shown along with the profiled feature. In addition composite strip maps were produced over the entire length of the line. These were developed using specified reference points along the length of the line. The second survey was carried out on the 13th October 1999. It had been timed to follow the rainy season in order that the effects of this could be evaluated. The SAAM unit was again deployed on board the supplied BIDI cleaning pig. The results of the survey were very revealing. Firstly it was evident that large sections of the line were very different to the previous survey. When analysed this indicated that the pipeline had moved, much in the same way that sand waves can cause pipelines to move in the desert. Of more interest was the behaviour of the pipeline at the locations that had previously been found to give the most severe changes in pipeline inclination. Surprisingly, it was found that these 10 Out-of-straightness detection locations had changed least. Indeed on closer examination it was found that some of these showed no significant change from the benchmarked profile. This was both re-assuring as it confirmed that the most severe bend radii were not getting worse, whilst confusing in that it seemed to be counter to what would have been expected. On reflection it is now believed that these more severe features are probably related to some real feature on the seabed, such as a rock. These act as pivot causing the pipeline shape to change severely. However, at the same time they are believed to act as an anchor, in that they are not moving and hence the shape of the pipeline in their vicinity is also effectively anchored. Analysis of the data from a third survey is expected to be completed early in Q1 2001, which it is hoped will provide yet further information on these features. Other applications The case study presented has discussed only one of the potential applications for the SAAM OOS technology. However, there are clearly more depending upon the design and operation of different pipeline systems. One proven use of the technology has been in the detection and assessment of Upheaval Buckles. This is primarily a problem with some subsea flowlines. Upheaval Buckles come about as a result of temperature effects causing a pipeline to change length (grow). With the line fixed at either end then the growth in its length will have to be relieved in some other way. Often this occurs where there is a slight vertical kink in the line. This will act as the source of the buckle with the pipeline tending to pop upwards. These resulting buckles do represent significant problems for the pipeline operator. The deformation of the pipeline can in worst cases become plastic. In other cases they can interfere with third parties (fishing boats trawl gear). SAAM can be deployed to inspect lines for Upheaval Buckles. Figure 9 shows the result of one such survey. In this case a buckle was found and sized in a buried subsea flowline. It is interesting to note that the feature exhibits the expected classic shape, with slight downwards dips at either end. A further potential application for the technology is in the detection of pipeline free-spans. Although the technology cannot provide confirmation of a void around the pipeline, it can be used as part of a monitoring programme to determine if the shape of a pipeline has changed (sagged) providing evidence that the pipeline may have become un-supported. Future developments 3-D capability The paper so far has presented work associated with the 2-D SAAM OOS method. This has shown the capabilities of the developed technology, discussed potential benefits and illustrated some the applications. However, clearly there are limitations with this approach and it is apparent that a 3- D version would be advantageous. There are many different reasons for this, including: 1. The elimination of lateral displacement errors associated with the 2-D method. 2. Provide unambiguous evidence of the presence and size of in-line horizontal and inclined bends. 3. Allow lateral buckling problems to be handled. 4. Provide a means of develop 3-D models of inaccessible pipeline features. The ability to develop this 3-D method has been a long stated goal for RST. To achieve this RST has been working on combining data from angular velocity sensors (gyros) with the existing vertical profiling data. This is being done as part of a new upgraded version of the SAAM tooling. This work has recently reached a significant milestone with the completion of a series of loop tests using the first prototype tool. Details of this new SAAM unit are not being released that this stage, 11 The Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Conference, February, 2001 however, the tooling will have all of the capabilities of current SAAM tooling, along with new sensors and substantial upgrades in terms of range and size (miniaturisation). At the time of writing this paper it is too early to draw many firm conclusions regarding the 3- D capability of this new tooling. However, some preliminary results are included for interest. These results have been acquired using 10" bidi pigs, deployed in RSTs in-house pigging test facility. The facility is arranged in a never-ending form with 4 off 5D, 90 horizontal bends, located two at either end of the facility, details of which are given in Figure 10. The test pigs have been deployed at a range of velocities between 0.7m/s and 1.1m/s. Some of the preliminary results of these tests are presented in Figure 11. This figure gives output from 2 angular velocity sensors mounted at right angles to each other. A total of 70 laps around the test loops have been included. These show a regular response as the pig passes around each bend. When resolved it would appear that the measured response is consistent with a change in angular position of 90. The results of this are shown in Figure 11. What is also interesting here is that as a result of the way the sensors have been arranged they can also detect the effective rotation of the pig in the test loop. It would appear that the pig rotates on average about 9 per bend. This can be seen as the overall wave like response of the data over the 70 laps of the test. Also, the data would appear to show that there is effectively no rotation in the straight pipe sections. On closer examination it can be seen that the pig rotation is consistent, but slightly quicker in approximately half of laps when compared with the rest. It is believed that this is caused by the pig being slightly out of balance with a small added mass on one side, which causes it to rotate when acted on by gravity. At this stage no formal assessment has been carried out on the 3-D prototype, however, the preliminary results are encouraging. It is anticipated that this assessment will be carried out during Q1 2001 with the first field trials likely to follow soon thereafter. Pipeline mapping The SAAM 2-D method was not developed with the intention of providing an overall mapping capability. Instead it was intended to give localised information for pipeline OOS purposes only. However, even with this data it has been found to be possible, given certain supporting information to develop basic strip maps. Clearly the development of the 3-D capability would be a major step forward with an obvious extension being the development of overall pipeline routing maps. Furthermore, it should also be possible to link the internal data acquired from the SAAM unit with data from pipeline markers, hence giving another means of cross-referencing locations along the length of the line. Conclusions Detecting, assessing and monitoring OOS is clearly an important aspect of pipeline mainte- nance. The development of a pipeline cleaning pig based internal inspection tool, with the benefits associated with ease of deployment and minimal risk, is believed to represent a major contribution towards the successful management of OOS problems. The SAAM Pipeline Inspection tool is believed to be the first commercially available product specifically design for use on-board standard cleaning pigs. SAAM has been shown to offer a viable, cost effective alternative to traditional methods of determining OOS. Details of the 2-D method have been presented and discussed. Of particular importance has been the approach to error handling and the accuracy of the tooling. A clear understanding has been presented regarding how these errors arise and how they are managed within acceptable limits. The case study presented and the other applications discussed, have illustrated the different roles in which SAAM can be used. It has been shown how it can be used to acquire pipeline OOS data associated with a known problem, such as an Upheaval Buckle, thereby enabling the client to make informed decisions regarding the remedial strategy. The Abana case study, on the other hand, has shown how the tooling can be incorporated within an on-going maintenance programme in order to 12 Out-of-straightness detection locate and monitor parts of the pipeline which may be changing and becoming increasingly out of straight. The development of a 3-D version of the tooling is becoming an ever increasing possibility with the successful completion of the first series of tests using the most recent version of SAAM. These tests have shown that the tooling can be used to determine changes in the horizontal plane and work is progressing in developing the limits of this technology in order that it can be released during 2001. In conclusion, the detection of pipeline OOS using the SAAM Pipeline Inspection tool is one of the most proven uses of the technology. The ability to perform this role using a cleaning pig as the carrier tool is seen as being a major step forward. Combined its relatively modest cost, the use of SAAM as part of a routine condition monitoring programme for pipeline OOS detection, assessment and monitoring has now been shown to be a reality. References 1 Marine Accident Investigation Board. Report of Inspectors Inquiry into the Loss of the Fishing Vessel Westhaven AH190. April 1998. 2 Kirkvik R, Clouston S, Czyz Dr. J; Pipeline Out of Straightness and Depth of Burial Measurements Using an Inertial Geometry Intelligent Pig; OPT 1999. 3 Czyz Dr. J, Falk J; The Use of the Geopig for Prevention of Pipeline Failures in Environmentally Sensitive Areas; Pipeline Pigging Integrity Assessment and Repair Conference, Houston February 2000. 4 Short G, Hak J, Smith Dr. G; Low Cost Smart Pigging Comes of Age; Pipeline Integrity Assessment and Repair Conference, Houston February 2000. 5 Short G, Fletcher M; The Role of Smart Cleaning Pigs In Pipeline Rehabilitation and Repair; Pipeline Rehabilitation and Maintenance Conference, Prague September 2000. 6 Russell D, Snodgrass B, Smith Dr. G.; The Smart Acquisition Analysis Module for Pipeline Inspection; ISOPE 2000, Seattle, May 2000. 7 Smith Dr. G, Short G, Russell D, Owens E; Testing Instrumentation for the Identification of Wax In Hydrocarbon Pipelines; ISOPE 2000, Seattle, May 2000. 8 Russell D, Ogunjimi P; Measurement of Pig Behaviour Provides Low Cost Solution to Monitoring Pipeline Geometry; Oil and Gas Journal, May 2000. 13 The Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Conference, February, 2001 Figure 1. SAAM in a bidi pig. Figure 2-SAAM" Inspection CapabiIity 14 Out-of-straightness detection Figure 3-PipeIine Schematic Figure 4-Test Loop Data 15 The Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Conference, February, 2001 Figure 5-Comparison Between SAAM" and ROV Data Figure 6-Abana FieId Layout 16 Out-of-straightness detection Figure 8-Raw Data and Generated ProfiIe Figure 7-Abana 12" Carrier Pig 17 The Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Conference, February, 2001 Figure 9-ProfiIe of an UpheavaI BuckIe Figure 10-Photo of RST Test FaciIity 18 Out-of-straightness detection Figure 11-3D Data (70 Laps) Figure 12-HorizontaI DispIacement Around RST Test Rig