PETRONAS TECHNICAL STANDARDS

Specifications And Requirements For Pipeline In-Line

Inspection

PTS 11.35.03
October 2013

© 2013 PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (PETRONAS)

All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form
or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the permission of the copyright
owner. PETRONAS Technical Standards are Company’s internal standards and meant for authorized users only.
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 2 of 30

FOREWORD

PETRONAS Technical Standards (PTS) has been developed based on the accumulated knowledge,
experience and best practices of the PETRONAS group supplemented by national and international
standards where appropriate. The key objective of PTS is to ensure standard technical practice
across the PETRONAS group.

Compliance to PTS is compulsory for PETRONAS-operated facilities and Joint Ventures (JVs) where
PETRONAS has more than fifty percent (50%) shareholding and/or operational control, and includes
all phases of work activities.

Contractors/manufacturers/suppliers who use PTS are solely responsible in ensuring the quality of
work, goods and services meet the required design and engineering standards. In the case where
specific requirements are not covered in the PTS, it is the responsibility of the
Contractors/manufacturers/suppliers to propose other proven or internationally established
standards or practices of the same level of quality and integrity as reflected in the PTS.

In issuing and making the PTS available, PETRONAS is not making any warranty on the accuracy or
completeness of the information contained in PTS. The Contractors/manufacturers/suppliers shall
ensure accuracy and completeness of the PTS used for the intended design and engineering
requirement and shall inform the Owner for any conflicting requirement with other international
codes and technical standards before start of any work.

PETRONAS is the sole copyright holder of PTS. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored
in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, recording
or otherwise) or be disclosed by users to any company or person whomsoever, without the prior
written consent of PETRONAS.

The PTS shall be used exclusively for the authorised purpose. The users shall arrange for PTS to be
kept in safe custody and shall ensure its secrecy is maintained and provide satisfactory information
to PETRONAS that this requirement is met.
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 3 of 30

ANNOUNCEMENT

Please be informed that the entire PTS inventory is currently undergoing transformation exercise
from 2013 - 2015 which includes revision to numbering system, format and content. As part of this
change, the PTS numbering system has been revised to 6-digit numbers and drawings, forms and
requisition to 7-digit numbers. All newly revised PTS will adopt this new numbering system, and
where required make reference to other PTS in its revised numbering to ensure consistency. Users
are requested to refer to PTS 00.01.01 (PTS Index) for mapping between old and revised PTS
numbers for clarity. For further inquiries, contact PTS administrator at
ptshelpdesk@petronas.com.my
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 4 of 30

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 5
1.1 SCOPE ............................................................................................................................ 5
1.2 GLOSSARY OF TERMS..................................................................................................... 5
1.3 SUMMARY OF CHANGES .................................................................................... 5
2.0 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS TO API 1163 – 2005 ................................................. 6
2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 6
2.2 REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 TERMS & DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................. 6
2.4 SYSTEMS QUALIFICATION PROCESS ............................................................................ 12
2.5 IN-LINE INSPECTION SYSTEM SELECTION .................................................................... 12
2.6 QUALIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS ................................................. 14
2.7 SYSTEM OPERATIONAL VALIDATION ........................................................................... 16
2.8 SYSTEM RESULTS VERIFICATION.................................................................................. 18
2.9 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................... 20
2.10 QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ............................................................................... 22
APPENDIX F - ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES MATRIX ...................................................... 23
APPENDIX G - SAMPLE SURVEY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ................................................... 25
APPENDIX H - SAMPLE OF LIST OF CRITICAL INFORMATION............................................. 26
APPENDIX I - SAMPLE CLEANLINESS CRITERIA ................................................................. 28
APPENDIX J - CONSIDERATION FOR PIG STUCK SCENARIO ............................................... 29
3.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................... 30
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 5 of 30

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The objective of PTS 11.35.03 is to ensure that in-line inspection for offshore and onshore
pipelines is designed, manufactured, tested, and performed meeting regulator’s and
PETRONAS’ requirements and specifications. The Specifications and Requirements for
Pipeline In-Line Inspection technical specification specify pertinent requirements and
specifications of in-line inspection tool and field activities.

The main users of this document are operations, maintenance, reliability, integrity and
engineering personnel that deal with in-line inspection activities for offshore and/or onshore
pipeline system in PETRONAS’ OPUs and PSCs.

1.1 SCOPE

1.1.1 This PTS specifies requirements and gives recommendations for specifications and
requirements for pipeline in-line inspection for both onshore and offshore pipeline system.
1.1.2 The use of this PTS as a supplement to API 1163 code will allow OPUs and PSCs to ensure
quality deliverables of pipeline in-line inspection and move closer towards realising zero
pipeline system failure and ALARP pipeline risk level.
1.1.3 Other requirements in addition to API 1163 are mentioned in Chapter 2. Chapter 2 of this
PTS provides amendments and supplements to clauses of API 1163-2005 and it shall be read
together with the code. Where clauses of API 1163-2005 are not amended or supplemented
by this PTS they shall apply as written.

1.2 GLOSSARY OF TERMS

1.2.1 General Definition of Terms & Abbreviations

Please refer to PTS General Terms, Abbreviations & Specific Requirements PTS 00.01.03 for
General Definition of Terms & Abbreviations.

1.2.2 Specific Definition of Terms

None
1.2.3 Specific Abbreviations

None

1.3 SUMMARY OF CHANGES

This PTS 11.35.03 replaces PTS 30.40.60.31 (January 2011).

 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 6 of 30

2.0 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS TO API 1163 – 2005

Clauses of API 1163 - 2005 that are not mentioned in this PTS shall apply and remain valid.

2.1 INTRODUCTION

2.1.1 GUIDING PRINCIPLES

2.1.1.1 In-line inspection service provider’s personnel that operate in-line inspection systems need
also to have knowledge of regulatory requirements and industry standards applicable to the
pipeline system that they are inspecting.

2.2 REFERENCES
2.2.1 Reference shall also include the following:
European Pipeline Operators Forum Specifications and Requirements for Intelligent Pig
Inspection of Pipelines - Version 2009

2.3 TERMS & DEFINITIONS

2.3.1 The followings terms and definitions shall apply:
2.3.1.1 anomaly (See Figure 1): An unexamined deviation from the norm in pipe material, coatings,
or welds. See also imperfection, defect, and feature.
2.3.1.2 anomaly & pipeline data analysis: The process through which anomaly & pipeline data are
integrated and analyzed to further classify & characterize anomalies.
2.3.1.3 appurtenance: A component that is attached to the pipeline; e.g., valve, tee, casing,
instrument connection.
2.3.1.4 Arc strike: Localised points of surface melting caused by an electrical arc (also referred to hot
spot).
4.20 cold work: Permanent strain in a metal accompanied by strain hardening.
4.21 component: Any physical part of the pipeline, other than line pipe, including but not limited
to valves, welds, tees, flanges, fittings, taps, branch connections, outlets, supports and
anchors.
4.22 confidence interval: A range of values around the statistical mean.
4.23 confidence level: A statistical term used to describe the mathematical certainty with which a
statement is made.
4.24 corrosion cluster: Two or more adjacent metal loss anomalies on the wall of a pipe or on a
weld that may interact to weaken the pipeline more than either would individually.
4.25 corrosion: The deterioration of a material, usually a metal, that results from a reaction with
its environment.
4.26 crack: A fracture type discontinuity characterized by a sharp tip and high ratio of length to
width to opening displacement.
4.27 data analysis: The evaluation process through which inspection indications are classified and
characterized.
4.28 debris: Extraneous material in a pipeline which may interfere with the ILI tool.
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 7 of 30

4.29 defect: A physically examined anomaly with dimensions or characteristics that exceed
acceptable limits. See also imperfection.
4.30 deformation: A change in shape, such as a bend, buckle, dent, ovality, ripple, wrinkle, or any
other change which affects the roundness of the pipeís cross-section or straightness of the
pipe.
4.31 deformation tool: An instrumented in-line inspection tool designed to measure
deformations in the pipe. See geometry tool.
4.32 dent: A local change in piping surface contour caused by an external force such as
mechanical impact or rock impact.
4.33 detect: To sense or obtain a measurable indication from a feature.
4.34 detection threshold: A characteristic dimension or dimensions of an anomaly that must be
exceeded to achieve a stated probability of detection. See also measurement threshold and
reporting threshold.
4.35 DSAW: Double submerged arc welding. A welding process used in the manufacture of pipe.
4.36 electromagnetic acoustic transducer (EMAT): A type of transducer that generates ultrasound
in steel pipe without a liquid couplant using magnets and coils for inspection of the pipe.
4.37 ERW: Electric resistance welding. A welding process used in the manufacturing of pipe.
4.38 essential variables: The common set of characteristics or analysis steps for a family (series)
of in-line inspection tools that may be covered within one performance specification.
4.39 evaluation: A review, following the characterization and examination of an anomaly, to
determine whether the anomaly meets specified acceptance criteria.
4.40 examination: A direct physical inspection of an anomaly by a person, which may include the
use of nondestructive examination techniques.
4.41 feature: Any physical object detected by an in-line inspection system. Features may be
anomalies, components, nearby metallic objects, welds, appurtenances or some other item.
4.42 flash welding: A form of electric resistance welding used in the manufacturing of pipe.
4.43 gas: Natural gas, flammable gas, or gas which is toxic or corrosive.
4.44 gauging pig: A utility pig mounted with a flexible metal plate, or plates to gauge the internal
diameter of the pipeline. Pipe bore restrictions less than the plate diameter or short radius
bends will permanently deflect the plate material.
4.45 geometry tool: An instrumented in-line inspection tool that measures deformations in the
pipe. See deformation tool.
4.46 girth weld: A complete circumferential butt weld joining pipe or components.
4.47 gouge: Elongated grooves or cavities usually caused by mechanical removal of metal. See
also cold work.
4.48 grinding: Reduction in wall thickness by removal of material by hand filing or power disk
grinding.
4.49 hard spot: A localized increase in hardness through the thickness of a pipe, produced during
hot rolling of a steel plate as a result of localized quenching.
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 8 of 30

4.50 hazardous liquid: Petroleum, petroleum products, CO2, or anhydrous ammonia.

4.51 heat affected zone: The area around the weld where the metallurgy of the metal is altered
by the rise in temperature caused by the welding process, but this is distinct from the weld
itself. The width of the heat affected zone is typically limited to a few mm only, depending
on the welding process and parameters.
4.52 ILI: See in-line inspection.
4.53 imperfection: An anomaly with characteristics that do not exceed acceptable limits. See also
defect.
4.54 indication: A signal from an in-line inspection system. An indication may be further classified
or characterized as an anomaly, imperfection, or component. (See Figure 1).
4.55 inertial tool: A type of in-line inspection tool used to map the centerline of a pipeline using
sensors that respond to inertial changes. See also mapping tool.
4.56 in-line inspection (ILI): An inspection of a pipeline from the interior of the pipe using an in-
line inspection tool. Also called intelligent or smart pigging.
4.57 in-line inspection report: A report provided to the operator that contains a comprehensive
analysis of the data from an in-line inspection.
4.58 in-line inspection system: An inspection tool and the associated hardware, software,
procedures, and personnel required for performing and interpreting the results of an inline
inspection.
4.59 in-line inspection technology: A class of inspection methodologies (i.e., EMAT, MFL,
ultrasonic, caliper, etc.) used in the performance of an in-line inspection.
4.60 in-line inspection tool: An instrumented device or vehicle that uses a nondestructive testing
technique to inspect the pipeline from the inside or that uses sensors and other equipment
to size one or more characteristics of the pipeline. Also known as intelligent or smart pig.
4.61 inspection: The use of a nondestructive testing technique.
4.62 intelligent pig: See “in-line inspection tool.”
4.63 interaction rules: A spacing criterion among anomalies that establishes when closely spaced
anomalies should be treated as a single, larger anomaly.
4.64 joint: Single section of pipe that is welded to others to make up a pipeline.
4.65 lamination: An internal metal separation creating layers generally parallel to the surface.
4.66 lap weld: A welding process used in the manufacture of line pipe.
4.67 launcher: A device used to insert an in-line inspection tool into a pressurized pipeline, may
be referred to as a pig trap or scraper trap.
4.68 longitudinal weld: Tubular product having one longitudinal seam produced by any welding
process.
4.69 magnetic flux leakage (MFL): A type of in-line inspection technology in which a magnetic
field is induced in the pipe wall between two poles of a magnet. Anomalies affect the
distribution of the magnetic flux in the wall. The magnetic flux leakage pattern is used to
detect and characterize anomalies.
4.70 magnetic marker: See Above Ground Marker.
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 9 of 30

4.71 magnetic particle inspection (MPI): A nondestructive examination technique for locating
surface flaws in steel using fine magnetic particles and magnetic fields.
4.72 management of change (MOC): A process that systematically recognizes changes of a
technical, physical, procedural or organizational nature and communicates them to the
appropriate parties.
4.73 mapping tool: An in-line inspection tool that uses inertial sensing or other technology to
collect data that can be analyzed to produce an elevation and plan view of the pipeline
route.
4.74 measured wall thickness: Measured wall thickness that is representative for a whole pipe
joint/component. For ultrasonic tools the value shall be based on direct wall thickness
measurement, for magnetic tools on the inferred magnetic flux signals.
4.75 measurement threshold: A dimension or dimensions above which an anomaly measurement
can be made. See also detection threshold and reporting threshold.
4.76 mechanical damage: A generic term used to describe combinations of dents, gouges, and/or
cold work caused by the application of external forces. Mechanical damage can also include
coating damage, movement of metal, and high residual stresses.
4.77 metal loss: Any pipe anomaly in which metal has been removed. Metal loss is usually due to
corrosion or gouging.
4.78 MFL: See magnetic flux leakage.
4.79 MIC: See microbiologically influenced corrosion.
4.80 microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC): Corrosion or deterioration of metals resulting
from the metabolic activity of microorganisms. Such corrosion may be initiated or
accelerated by microbial activity.
4.81 mill related anomalies: Anomalies in pipe or weld metal resulting from the manufacturing
process.
4.82 MOC: See management of change.
4.83 MPI: See magnetic particle inspection.
4.84 NACE: Previously known as the National Association of Corrosion Engineers, also referred to
as NACE International.
4.85 NDE: See nondestructive examination.
4.86 NDT: See nondestructive testing.
4.87 nominal wall thickness: The wall thickness specified for the manufacture of the pipe. Actual
wall thickness will vary within a range permitted by the pipe manufacturing
standard/specification and sometimes will vary outside that range if the manufacturing was
not performed within the stated tolerance.
4.88 nondestructive examination (NDE): The evaluation of results from nondestructive testing
methods or nondestructive testing techniques to detect, locate, measure, and evaluate
anomalies.
4.89 nondestructive testing (NDT): A process that involves the inspection, testing or evaluation of
materials, components and assemblies for materialsí discontinuities, properties and machine
problems without further impairing or destroying the partís serviceability.
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 10 of 30

4.90 operator: A person or organization that owns or operates pipeline facilities.

4.91 ovality: Out of roundness, i.e. egg shaped or broadly elliptical.
4.92 performance specification: A written set of statements that define the capabilities of an in-
line inspection system to detect, classify and characterize features.
4.93 pig: A generic term signifying any independent, selfcontained or tethered device, tool, or
vehicle that moves through the interior of the pipeline for inspecting, dimensioning, or
cleaning. A pig may or may not be an in-line inspection tool.
4.94 pig trap: An ancillary item of pipeline equipment, associated with pipework and valves, for
introducing a pig into a pipeline or removing a pig from a pipeline.
4.95 pigging: Running of pig or ILI tool in a pipeline.
4.96 pipe mill anomaly: An anomaly that arises during manufacture of the pipe, as for instance a
lap, flake, lamination, non-metallic inclusion, roll mark and seam weld anomaly.
4.97 pipeline: A continuous part of a pipeline facility used to transport a hazardous liquid or gas.
Includes pipe, valves, and other appurtenances attached to pipe.
4.98 pipeline component: A feature or appurtenance, such as a valve, cathodic protection
connection, or tee that is a normal part of the pipeline. See component.
4.99 pipeline coordinates: Location coordinates of the course that a pipeline follows as given in a
standard geographic coordinate system.
4.100 pipeline system: All portions of the physical facilities through which gas, oil, or product
moves during transportation. This includes pipe, valves, and other appurtenances attached
to the pipe, compressor units, pumping units, metering stations, regulator stations, delivery
stations, breakout tanks, holders, and other fabricated assemblies.
4.101 pitting: Localized corrosion of a metal surface that is confined to small areas and takes the
form of cavities called pits.
4.102 POD: See probability of detection.
4.103 POFC: See probability of false call.
4.104 POI: See probability of identification.
4.105 probability of detection (POD): The probability of a feature being detected by an in-line
inspection tool.
4.106 probability of exceedence: The probability of a defect larger than critical size, given an
anomaly of the size predicted by the ILI inspection tool.
4.107 probability of false call (POFC): The probability of a non-existing feature being reported as a
feature.
4.108 probability of identification (POI): The probability that the type of an anomaly or other
feature, once detected, will be correctly identified (e.g., as metal loss, dent, etc.).
4.109 provider: See service provider.
4.110 QC: Quality Control.
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 11 of 30

4.111 qualification (personnel): The process of demonstrating skill and knowledge, along with
documented training and experience required for personnel to properly perform the duties
of a specific job.
4.112 qualification (system): The process of validating, through tests and analysis, the performance
specifications of an in-line inspection system.
4.113 receiver: A pipeline facility used for removing a pig from a pressurized pipeline; may be
referred to as trap, or pig trap or scraper trap.
4.114 reference point: A well-documented point on the pipe or right of way that serves as a
measurement point for location of anomalies.
4.115 reference wall thickness: The actual undiminished wall thickness surrounding a feature, used
as reference for the determination of the feature depth.
4.116 reporting threshold: A parameter that defines whether or not an anomaly will be reported.
The parameter may be a limiting value on the depth, width, or length of the anomaly or
feature.
4.117 ripple: A smooth wrinkle or bulge visible on the outside wall of the pipe. The term “ripple” is
sometimes restricted to wrinkles or bulges that are no greater in height than 1.5X wall
thickness. See also buckle and wrinkle.
4.118 RPR (Rupture Pressure Ratio): - The ratio of the predicted burst pressure calculated by
analysis criterion (e.g. ASME B31G, RSTRENG, etc) to the maximum allowable operating
pressure (MAOP).
4.119 seam weld: The longitudinal or spiral weld in pipe, which is made in the pipe mill.
4.120 seamless: Pipe made without a seam weld.
4.121 service provider: Any organization or individual providing services to operators.
4.122 shall: The term ìshallî is used in this Standard to indicate those practices that are mandatory.
4.123 should: “Should” or “it is recommended” is used to indicate that a provision is not
mandatory but recommended as good practice.
4.124 sizing accuracy: The accuracy with which an anomaly dimension or characteristic is reported.
Typically, accuracy is expressed by a tolerance and a certainty. As an example, depth sizing
accuracy for metal-loss is commonly expressed as ±10% of the wall thickness (the tolerance)
80% of the time (the certainty).
4.125 SMLS: Seamless pipe.
4.126 SMYS (Specified Minimum Yield Strength): The minimum yield strength prescribed by the
specification under which pipe is purchased from the manufacturer.
4.127 spalling: Abrasion of the pipe surface resulting in shallow surface laps and possibly hardening
of the material below.
4.128 spiral weld: A longitudinal DSAW that traverses helically around the pipe. A welding process
used in the manufacture of pipe.
4.129 stress corrosion cracking (SCC): A form of cracking of a material produced by the combined
action of tensile stress (residual or applied), a corrosive environment, and steel that is
susceptible to SCC.
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 12 of 30

4.130 stress: Tensile, shear or compressive force per unit area.

4.131 third-party damage: Damage to a pipeline facility by an outside party. For the purposes of
this document, third party damage includes damage caused by an operator or contractor
working for the operator. See mechanical damage.
4.132 tolerance: The range with which an anomaly dimension or characteristic is sized or
characterized. See certainty.
4.133 transducer: A device for converting energy from one form to another. For example, in
ultrasonic testing, conversion of electrical pulses to acoustic waves and vice versa.
4.134 trap: A pipeline facility for launching or receiving tools and pigs. See launcher and receiver.
4.135 ultrasonic testing (UT): A type of inspection technology that uses ultrasound for inspecting
pipe.
4.136 verification dig: An excavation made to verify the reported results of an in-line inspection.
See calibration dig.
4.137 verification measurement: Characteristics of an anomaly as physically measured when the
anomaly has been exposed for measurement or repair during a dig.
4.138 weld: The area where joining has been done by welding and where the material has
undergone a melting and solidification process. This area is distinct from the heat affected
zone, but surrounded by it.
4.139 weld affected area: Area on both sides of a weld where ILI measurements are affected by
the geometry of the weld (e.g. due to sensor dynamics).
4.140 weld anomaly: Anomaly in the weld or the heat affected zone.
4.141 wrinkle: A smooth and localized bulge visible on the outside wall of the pipe. The term
“wrinkle” is sometimes restricted to bulges that are greater in height than one wall
thickness. See also buckle and ripple.
4.142 wrinkle bend: A field bend that contains smooth and localized bulges on the inner radius of
the bend.

2.4 SYSTEMS QUALIFICATION PROCESS

2.4.1 OPERATOR & SERVICE PROVIDER RESPONSIBILITIES

2.4.1.1 Please also refer to Appendix F for roles and responsibilities matrix.

2.5 IN-LINE INSPECTION SYSTEM SELECTION

2.5.1 GENERAL
2.5.1.1 Additional criteria for selection of in-line system shall be as follows:
i. Representative from the pipeline operator and the ILI service provider should analyze
the goal and objectives of the inspection and match relevant facts known about the
pipeline and expected anomalies with the capabilities and performance of an ILI tools.
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 13 of 30

2.5.1.2 The process of selecting in-line inspection system should also require the following:
i. Accuracy and detection capabilities of the ILI method (i.e. probability of detection,
classification, and sizing must match the expectations) should be evaluated.
ii. Detection sensitivity: For re-inspection comparison study the minimum detectable
anomaly size specified for the ILI tool must be smaller than the size of defect anticipated
to be detected.
iii. Classification capability: The ILI tool should be able to differentiate the targeted defect
type from other types of anomalies (e.g. metal loss corrosion vs. metal loss gouge).
iv. The sizing parameter i.e. depth, length, width accuracy should be sufficient to enable
prioritization for anomalies verification, repair, re-inspection and defect assessment
algorithm.

2.5.2 PHYSICAL AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CONSTRAINTS

2.5.2.1 The following shall also be added under the physical properties of pipeline section:
i. Length
ii. Diameter
iii. Wall thickness
iv. Steel grade
v. Type of valves
vi. Tee and wye joint
vii. Radius, type and bends configurations
vii. Known physical restrictions
viii. Barrel end closures type
ix. Normal tees, barred tees
x. Launchers and receivers (for single or bi-directional flow)
xi. Pipeline repair equipments i.e. mechanical connector, mechanical composite repair
clamp
xii. Swivel flange
xiii. Type of weld and manufacturing process
xiv. Internal diameter (ID)
xv. Elevation profile
xvi. Etc.
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 14 of 30

2.5.2.2 The following shall also be added under the characteristic of the fluid:
i. Type and composition
ii. Chemical properties (e.g., corrosivity)
iii. Type of fluid i.e. gas or liquid
iv. Contaminants of the fluid (e.g. H2S, Hg) can limit the tools ability to operate effectively.
v. Acceptable range of flow rate, temperature and pressure and must meet the operator
pipeline conditions.
vi. For two-way flow, such as in storage operations, upstream and downstream flow
directions should be clearly defined.
vii. The reduction of product flow and/or speed reduction capability of the ILI tools should
be considered for inspection of higher-velocity lines.
viii. Extreme temperature (hot or cold) and pressure.

2.5.3 SELECTION OF AN IN-LINE INSPECTION SYSTEM

2.5.3.1 Confidence level of an ILI tool shall also be part of the expected performanace characteristic
that service provider shall inform pipeline operator.
2.5.3.2 Operational reliability of the tool shall also include history of the ILI tool performance
verified through dig up verification exercise, pull through test or loop test, operational
success rate and failed surveys including its causes, etc.
2.5.3.3 Performance on detecting other types of anomalies other than those of interest i.e. multiple-
caused anomalies such as the detection of dents by a metal loss tool, etc.
2.5.3.4 Additional operational tool constraints shall also include water cut, tools velocity, pressure,
product, etc.

2.6 QUALIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS

2.6.1 GENERAL
2.6.1.1 Refer also to NACE RP0102, Clause 3.1 for further information on appropriateness of tool
selection.

2.6.2 PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS

2.6.2.1 ILI performance specification shall also include the following:
i. Measurement threshold, with definition (See Appendix A and Figure 9A).
2.6.2.2 The type of anomalies, components, features and characteristics shall also include the
following:
i. Hydrogen induced cracking (HIC).
ii. Girth weld anomaly.
iii. Longitudinal weld anomaly.
iv. Spiral weld crack and spiral weld anomaly.
v. Dent with metal loss.
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 15 of 30

2.6.2.3 Components or other features shall also include the following:

i. Casings (begin/end), offtake, crack arrestors, and buckle arrestor (begin/end).
ii. Additional metal / material and pipeline fixture.
iii. Repair.
iv. Above ground markers, reference magnet, anodes, external supports, CP connection,
ground anchor.
2.6.2.4 Anomaly type or defect type for metal loss shall be defined according to the Pipeline
Operator Forum, Clause 2.5.
2.6.2.5 Under the sizing accuracy, the following shall also be noted:
i. The depth and length sizing accuracies shall be specified by service provider. Width-to-
length ratio significantly affects the ability to predict depth, thus accurate width
estimates are important as well. Operator should specify the minimum sizing accuracies
needed to achieve certain confidence in the ILI run result. This is because the required
accuracy depends on the goal of inspection and on the number of indications found.
Inaccuracies in estimating the remaining wall thickness directly impact the estimated
severity of a metal loss anomaly. For deep metal loss regions, errors in depth strongly
affect calculated severity for defects.
ii. Confidence levels are also important in defining accuracies. At lower confidence levels,
the accuracy appears much greater, i.e. 80% confidence level implies that 16 out of 20
defects are correctly reported, thus sizing accuracy is higher than 90% confidence
level.)”
2.6.2.6 Under the sizing capability, the following shall also be added:
i. Location accuracy shall depend on both of the accuracy of the odometer and the
location of reference point’s i.e.magnetic markers or any known pipeline features.
Service provider should also refer to weld book, updated pipeline as built drawings with
detailed locations of valves, branch connections and other pipeline features to improve
the location accuracy. The performance specification shall also state orientation
accuracy of the tool.”
2.6.2.7 For essential variables, other constraints such as magnetization level, applied and residual
stress of the pipeline, remnant magnetization as a result from previous inspection, sensor lift
off, etc. shall also be considered.
2.6.2.8 Under the data and analyses requirements, the following shall also be added:
i. The analyses used to define the statistical quantities, such as PODs, POIs, POEs, POFCs,
and sizing accuracies, shall be in accordance with standard statistical analysis methods,
and the confidence levels given shall be consistent with the amount of data used in the
analyses.
ii. For metal loss due to corrosion and gouge, manual sizing shall be performed for total of
50 numbers or 10% of total defect detected for most critical defect depth & length,
whichever is lower OR defect depth more than 40% of the wall thickness.
More stringent requirements can be applied for above.
2.6.2.9 For validation purposes, the effect of continued corrosion growth should be considered
based on sound engineering judgment.
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 16 of 30

2.6.2.10 Sizing accuracy should also consider the following:

i. For metal loss factors such as defects geometry (i.e. defect width to length ratio of
actual versus reported by MFL) and inspection variable (i.e. background magnetization
and tool velocity) may be evaluated and documented.

2.7 SYSTEM OPERATIONAL VALIDATION

2.7.1 GENERAL
2.7.1.1 All in-line inspection project requirements, pre-inspection, inspection, and post-inspection
requirements and procedures shall be documented as part of the final project
documentation.

2.7.2 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

2.7.2.1 Operator shall develop the contract by encapsulating all the necessary aspects of into the
contract. Objective of the inspection needs to be defined. Role of the service provider and
operator needs to be clarified and clear scope of work needs to be established. In addition,
the contract shall address liability issues and conformance to the operator requirements,
local government and HSE requirements of the work. For additional information see NACE
RP0102, Section 5: Logistical Guidelines.
2.7.2.2 The operator shall disclose to the service provider any and all changes in geometry via a
previous calliper/geometry pig run and external ROV survey and changes in planned
operating conditions before the in-line inspection system is launched into the pipeline.
2.7.2.3 The operator shall inform the service provider on all HSE requirements. Service provider
shall comply their qualified crew has attended the necessary HSE training. The service
provider shall keep all records for the project as per Section 11.2.2 of API 1163. A survey
acceptance critieria shall be provided by service provider as per NACE RP0102, Clause 5.1.5.
A sample of the survey acceptance criteria is in the Appendix G. The operator shall confirm
all the critical information required for the pigging run to the service provider. A sample of
the critical information list is in the Appendix H.

2.7.3 PRE-INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS

2.7.3.1 Pre-inspection function tests should also include the following:
i. Confirmation that an adequate power supply is available and operational. The battery
unit used must have at least 100% additional capacity above minimum required based
on duration of the run. If more than two pipelines are planned to be inspected in one
mobilisation, service provider shall ensure that a new battery unit is used for the
subsequent run.
ii. Battery for pig tracking device.
iii. Confirmation and record that the tool has been switched on prior to insertion of tool
into the pipeline.
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 17 of 30

2.7.3.2 Operational Parameter Check

i. Service provider shall confirm with the operator and record that the operational
parameter of the pipeline is still consistent with the agreed parameter and within the
range used to define the required performance specification. Any change to the
operating parameter needs to be analysed and confirmed to be acceptable before
proceeding with the run.

2.7.4 INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS

2.7.4.1 For ILI tool launching, the following shall also be applied:
i. Certain degree of cleanliness is required to ensure a successful inspection run. The
degree of cleanliness depends predominantly on the normal rate of formation of debris
inside the pipeline where the debris is the total weight of all types of debris collected
(sand, scale, wax, pyrophoric iron, etc). For an unprocessed line, it is required to use a
scraper brush pig to sufficiently clean the pipeline.
ii. For a line that has not been pigged for a considerable amount of duration and
suspected to be full of debris, a progressive cleaning programme must be considered. In
this situation, it is also recommended that a pig tracking device be installed pig tracking
device and ensure that the pig tracking device battery duration is a minimum or 144
hours or 50% of the normal run time of the pig whichever more. This is to allow for
normal pig stuck contingency process or if needed, the underwater process of locating
the pig.The typical cleanliness requirement is in the Appendix I.
iii. One time gauging run is required as a minimum before launching the inspection tool.
For a baseline survey, it is required to run a calliper /geometry survey for baseline
calliper/ geometry data. For a repeat run where the line is not suspected to have a
change in geometry (buckle, dent), it is not necessary to run a calliper/geometry survey.
iv. The gauging pig needs to be sized to a maximum 95% of the smallest line internal
diameter (applicable for pipeline with or without internal diameter transition).
Therefore, the inspection tool used must have a minimum clearance of 5% of internal
diameter to ensure that the inspection tool will not get stuck. If really necessary to
deviate, an inspection tool or a gauging pig with a clearance of less than 5% will require
a risk assessment to be conducted and approved by the operator. All gauging or calliper
inspection data must be available when requested by the operator prior to launching
the inspection tool. Records must be made available in the final report.
2.7.4.2 For ILI tool receiving, the following shall also be applied:
i. Sample of debris collected during the pigging activity shall be collected by the operator
as part of pigging samples. The total debris collected shall be weighed by the operator
and the service provider shall record as part of the pigging log.
ii. In any pigging work there is always risk of pig stuck. However the stuck issue could be
minimised by following recommendations from Section 8.4.1. Therefore, the service
provider and operator shall develop a procedure for recovery in the event of pig stuck.
The pig stuck retrieval procedure consideration is in the Appendix J.
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 18 of 30

2.7.5 POST-INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS

2.7.5.1 For function tests, any sensor malfunction needs to be quantified and documented.
2.7.5.2 For data checks, the service provider shall define and document the steps necessary to check
the quality and quantity of the data collected during the inspection run in accordance to the
survey acceptance criteria in this PTS.
2.7.5.3 Steps for data checks shall also include the following:
i. Confirmation and quantification of how many adjacent sensor malfunction.
ii. Confirmation and quantification of how many Primary and Secondary sensor
malfunction.
iii. Confirmation and quantification of percentage of total data loss.
iv. Confirmation and quantification of maximum stretch of length without data.
v. Confirmation of total length captured.
vi. Confirmation of minimum velocity obtained and maximum velocity obtained as well as
percentage of data acquired within acceptable velocity range.
vii. Confirmation of minimum and maximum magnetisation level obtained as well as
percentage of data acquired within acceptable magnetisation range.
viii. Confirmation of correct clock orientation of data based on known features (taps, bends,
valves).
2.7.5.4 The final survey acceptance certificate shall be produced by the service operator within 24
hours of inspection completion. The final survey acceptance has to be agreed and signed off
by the operator before the demobilisation of the inspection tool and included in the final
report.

2.8 SYSTEM RESULTS VERIFICATION

2.8.1 INTRODUCTION
2.8.1.1 For on-shore pipeline operators, operators are recommended to include the scope of
verification digs as one of its last payment milestones during the establishing of
contract/price agreement. As verification digs costs varies depending on defect site location,
it is recommended to include several site conditions ie swampy, hilly, river crossing, road
crossing etc for operatorís cost quotation.
2.8.1.2 For off-shore pipeline operators, results verification refer to defects located at the riser and
near shore due to cost implications. For results data containing many severe defects,
offshore operators should conduct assessment, subsequently a “re-run” of the in-line
inspection tool may be required to validate on the results.
2.8.1.3 Alternatively, for offshore pipeline operators, prior to the actual run, a pull-through or loop
test is highly recommended to be conducted. This could be incorporate in the contract.
Pipeline operator shall determine the requirements of the pull-through test pipe i.e. the
defects and its sizes.
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 19 of 30

2.8.2 EVALUATION OF SYSTEM RESULTS

2.8.2.1 For process validation, the following shall also be included:
i. A review of the pipeline characteristics shall be conducted between pipeline operator
and service provider. The discussion shall enable service provider to anticipate the type
of defects expected based on pipeline characteristics ie pipeline product , history of
defects and type of backfilled soil, etc.
2.8.2.2 The following should also be considered when evaluating the types of historical data for
comparison purposes:
i. Previous CIPS and DCVG data to verify coating condition at the reported anomalies
locations (for onshore pipelines).
ii. Coupons and probes monitoring data.
iii. Corrosion inhibition data (if applicable).
iv. Other data and analyses, when supported by sound engineering practices.
2.8.2.3 If deemed necessary and requested by pipeline operator, service provider shall also re-
analyze the results confidence level.
2.8.2.4 For comparison with other data from the same inspection system, the following shall also
apply:
i. If the reported inspection results are not consistent with prior data, site verification
measurements are recommended as discussed below. Alternatively, the performance
specification can be restated or all or parts of the inspection data are not validated.
Service provider shall also reanalyze the results confidence level.
2.8.2.5 In this PTS, the title of Section 9.2.4 in API 1163-2005 shall be “Site Verification
Measurements”.
2.8.2.5 For site verification, it is also recommended for the pipeline operators to conduct site
verification measurements prior issuance of Final Acceptance. Final Acceptance here means
that the work has been completed and maintained and that all remedial works (if necessary)
have been completed to the satisfaction of the operator.”
2.8.2.6 Site Verification Methodology
Field assessment of metal loss defects: After cleaning of the pipe surface to remove deposits
and residual coating, a ëgridí method can be used to provide defect detail over the area of
interest for the feature. The gridded data can then be plotted as contours of depth. This can
be achieved via a variety of methods including pencil probes, pit probes, etc. The orientation
of the defect shall also be measured via orientation tape. All the mechanical probes are to be
calibrated and the calibration certs are to be presented prior verification digs and
verification measurement. This corrosion profile information should then be utilized for:
i. Defect assessment by an engineering code to determine acceptability, and
ii. Compared with the ILI tool information as verification of analysis.
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 20 of 30

Figure 5: Locations and dimensions of metal loss anomaly (POF Version 3.2 Jan 2005)
2.2.2.7 Verification Measurement Report
Upon completion of verification, the service provider shall produce a verification
measurements report to be signed off by both the service provider and the operator.
Contents within the report shall include but not limited to the following:
i. Method of verification
ii. Comparison results
iii. Corrosion growth analysis
iv. Rectification (if discrepancies found)

2.9 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

2.9.1 REPORT CONTENTS

2.9.1.1 The executive summary shall also include the following:
i. Most severe defects.
ii. Confidence level of the ILI data.
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 21 of 30

2.9.1.2 The executive summary shall also contain observations that, while exceeding the reporting
requirements based on the systemís performance specification, could be of interest to the
operator.

2.9.2 REPORTING FORMATS

2.9.2.1 Pipeline operator should also refer to European Pipeline Operators Forum Specifications and
Requirements for Intelligent Pig Inspection of Pipelines Version 2009, Section 6, Page 16.
2.9.2.2 For dig data, pipeline operator shall also refer to refer to European Pipeline Operators Forum
Specifications and Requirements for Intelligent Pig Inspection of Pipelines Version 2009,
Section 6.8, Page 21.
2.9.2.3 Daily Status Report
Service provider shall submit a written daily status report to operatorís representative
during the course of the work. The daily status report shall at least describe the following:
i. Chronological diary of events during the reporting period from 0001 hours to 2359
hours.
ii. Planned activities for the next day.
iii. Areas of concern.
iv. List of staff, time sheet and equipment employed on the work.
2.9.2.4 Preliminary Report
The preliminary report shall describe the on-site interpretation of findings based on the
surveys carried out by the service provider inclusive of severe defects, total length captured
and magnetization level. Service provider shall submit one copy of the preliminary
interpretation report for each pipeline within agreed time period with a qualitative
statement regarding the general metal loss finding.
2.9.2.5 Final Report
Service provider shall prepare the final report according to the following guideline. Service
provider is allowed to provide additional information in the report provided that the
information is reviewed and accepted by operatorís representative. All processed data shall
be clearly presented.
The final report shall at least include the following sections:
i. Executive Summary and Recommendations.
ii. Field Survey Activities.
iii. Results and Engineering Analysis.
iv. List of missing data from the tools survey.
v. Pipeline Charecteristics.
vi. Tools Specification.
vii. Dig up sheet.
viii. Comparison report between current and previous survey of all affected pipelines.
ix. Recommendations e.g. Pipeline Fitness for Service (FFS) (if necessary).
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 22 of 30

x. Presentation to operator on results/findings.

2.10 QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

2.10.1 SYSTEM SCOPE

2.10.1.1 This section establishes the quality system standards that are required of organizations
that perform the services used for inline inspection systems and in-line inspections, i.e.
service provider, and utilizing those systems, e.g. pipeline operator, regulator, public etc.
2.10.1.2 External Audit
Prior to performing the audit, the scope and procedure of the audit shall be clearly defined,
discussed, and mutually agreed and approved by the pipeline operator and service
provider.
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 23 of 30

APPENDIX F - ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES MATRIX

No. Activities Action Party
Operator Contractor
Project Requirements
1 Preparation of scope of work x
2 Establishment of technical evaluation criteria x
3 Submit technical proposal and tools specification x
4 Site visit (if applicable) x x
5 Evaluate technical criteria x
Pre-Inspection Requirements
6 Submission of pipeline questionnaire x
Provide pipeline information
7 - Pipeline Design Parameters (ROW & As-Built Drawings, x
SL & SR P&ID, ISOMETRIC or GA Drawings)
Prepare procedure and work schedule
8 - Provide PL Operation Parameters (Fluid medium, Max. x x
& Min. Operating condition - P,Q,T)
9 Review and verify existing pipeline information and x x
condition
Mechanical Check (Tool)
10 - the in-line inspection tool shall be checked visually to x
ensure that it is mechanically sound
Mechanical Check (Pipeline)
- SL and SL Door end closure mechanism
11 - Pig Signaller x
- Valve - full bore, actuator and body cavity

12 Above ground markers deployment and DGPS survey x x

Site Preparation for cleaning pigging operation
13 - to provide operational condition of product, flow and x
pressure throughout the pigging execution)
14 Pipeline cleaning x
To prepare IP tool which meet pipeline operational
15 condition i.e. product, flow, pressure, cleanliness, etc x
Inspection Requirements
Pipeline inspection using IP Dummy Pig to see the
readiness of pipeline to receive Intelligent Pigging
16 - inspecting minimum ID for clearance of IP passage x
throughout pipeline section
17 Launching the IP tool x x
18 Running the IP tool x
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 24 of 30

19 Receiving the IP tool after run x x

Post Inspection Requirements
20 IP Tool Functional Test x
21 Data checks, data completeness and quality of data x
22 Verifying inspection report x
23 Acceptance of results x
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 25 of 30

APPENDIX G - SAMPLE SURVEY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

The criteria should include the following parameters

a. Confirmation and quantification of how many adjacent sensor malfunction.
b. Confirmation and quantification of how many Primary and Secondary sensor malfunction.
c. Confirmation and quantification of percentage of total data loss.
d. Confirmation and quantification of maximum stretch of length without data.
e. Confirmation of total length captured.
f. Confirmation of minimum velocity obtained and maximum velocity obtained as well as percentage
of data acquired within acceptable velocity range.
g. Confirmation of minimum and maximum magnetisation level obtained as well as percentage of
data acquired within acceptable magnetisation range.
h. Confirmation of correct clock orientation of data based on known features (taps, bends, valves).

Condition Accepted Not accepted Achieved

Primary survey <=5% >10%
channel loss Yes or No
Secondary survey <=5% >10%
channel loss
Primary adjacent <4 For sizes < 12”; > 3
survey channel For sizes >=12”; > 6
defect
Total line length <= 1% >5%
(To be computed by
without data
service provider.
Continuous section <=20m >50m
Any values outside
without data
this range needs to
Minimum velocity =>0.5m/s for <0.3m/s for be discussed and
more than 90% more than 25% agreed by operator)
of pipeline of pipeline
Maximum velocity <=3m/s for >5m/s for more
more than 90% than 25% of
of pipeline pipeline
Magnetisation 10 <= X <=30 < 9 or > 31 KA/m
level KA/m for more for more than 25%
than 90% of of pipeline
pipeline
Features clock All features are Any feature not
position according to according to clock
correct clock orientation
orientation
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 26 of 30

APPENDIX H - SAMPLE OF LIST OF CRITICAL INFORMATION

Mechanical Characteristic of pipe (NACE RP 0102-2002, Section 3.2)
1 Steel grade
2 Type of welds
3 Length
4 internal diameter (ID) and ID changes
5 Elevation profile
6 Wall thickness and wall thickness changes
7 Bends configuration and back to back bends
8 Known ovalities
9 Valves (reduced bore) ñ Check valve not in system.
10 Unbarred tees and back to back tees
11 Any other restrictions (protruding probes, valves not fully
12 open)
Launchers and receivers suitability
13 Presence of internal coating and type
14 As-built and isometric drawings of the pipeline.

Fluid characteristic (NACE RP 0102-2002, Section 3.2)

1 The type of fluid (gas or liquid)
2 Type of product
3 Aggressiveness of the fluid
4 Range of flow rate
5 Range of pressure
6 Range of temperature
7 Flexibility to reduce or increase product flow and/or speed capability
8 Flexibility to reduce or increase product pressure
9 Flexibility to reduce temperature (for high temperature product)
10 Total travelling time for a pig (function of flow, pressure and distance)
11 Hydrates or pyrophoric metal presence

Operational history
1 Pipe operational pigging record (none, foam, bidi)
2 History of the previous ILI tool performance/success rate
3 Typical debris collected during operational pigging run
4 Repair record
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 27 of 30

Operational history
5 Pig stuck record

HSE
1 Toxicity of fluid (mercury, H2S, Sulphur)
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 28 of 30

APPENDIX I - SAMPLE CLEANLINESS CRITERIA

Note: Automatic requirement unless agreed otherwise by Principal to deviate from this requirement to reduce
cost/project execution time.
Tool type Type of product pipeline Criteria
MFL Multiphase flowlines 0.2kg/km
Crude oil /water gathering line 0.2kg/km
Processed crude export 0.1kg/km
pipeline
Unprocessed gas gathering
line*
Distribution gas line*
Processed product pipeline*
Others*
UT Any liquid line 0.05kg/km
* Please seek advice from Principal for these criteria.
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 29 of 30

APPENDIX J - CONSIDERATION FOR PIG STUCK SCENARIO

1. Operators are required monitor flow and pressure of the pipeline. What are the key
indicators to support the scenario of pig stuck? If the production flow stops it is highly likely
that the pig is stuck. If not it is possible that a pig may travel slightly slowly due to
accumulation of debris or due to bypass created by worn cups and discs. Should the travel
duration have exceeded 50% on top of normal run duration, then possibility of pig stuck is
warranted.
2. Operators are required to install pressure recorders or ensure pressure trending is able to be
captured for the duration of the run. Are there pressure charts or real time system trending
during the pig run? Operators are to analyse the charts and look for evidence of pressure
spike which may be caused due to pig getting stuck at several normal locations such as
valves, bends, tees and pipe transition.
3. Are there pigs fitted with pig locators? If yes, the battery life of the locators are required to
be determined so that a decision to mobilise an underwater support vessel can be made
before the pig locator runs out of power.
4. Are foam chaser pig available on site? This has to be identified up front.
5. Are there provision for reverse flow? This has to be identified up front.
6. Are there provision for increasing the flow and pressure? This has to be identified up front.
 PTS 11.35.03
SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION October 2013
Page 30 of 30

3.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

In this PTS, reference is made to the following Standards/Publications. Unless specifically

designated by date, the latest edition of each publication shall be used, together with any
supplements/revisions thereto:

PETRONAS STANDARDS
Index to PTS PTS 00.01.01
Requirements, General Definition of Terms, PTS 00.01.03
Abbreviations & Reading Guide

EUROPEAN STANDARD
European Pipeline Operators Forum Specifications POF Ver. 2009
and Requirements for Intelligent Pig Inspection of
Pipelines, Version 2009

NACE STANDARD
In-line Inspection of Pipelines, NACE RP0102 NACE RP0102