ECDA IMPLEMENTATION ON EDEN YUTURI 18” GATHERING PIPELINES

Carlos A. Melo G.
Petroamazonas EP
Quito, Ecuador

ABSTRACT

In 2010, mechanical integrity personnel assessed five 18” diameter gathering pipelines in the
Eden Yuturi field (Ecuador’s Amazon basin, South America), as part of the Pipeline Integrity
Management Plan. The assessment of what amounted to 23.5 km of pipelines was carried out
using an External Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology (ECDA) developed and
implemented following NACE-SP0502-2008 standard. This document presents a summary of
the results of the ECDA implementation in the Eden Yuturi Field.

During the pre-assessment stage, we found four preconditions that justified the development
and implementation of the ECDA project:

• Following the CFR Title 49, Part-195.6, the Eden Yuturi field is an Unusually Sensitive
Area.
• More than 50% of the total production of the company is transported by the five
gathering pipelines included in the study.
• The oldest pipeline was constructed in 2002 and the newest in 2008.
• On July of 2008 a leak was detected in one of these gathering pipelines.

With these antecedents, in 2008 CIS and DCVG indirect inspections were carried on the five
gathering pipelines. We proceeded with three dig inspections. After the inspection, external
pitting was discovered on one pipeline. The discovery of pitting, in addition to the previously
found and corrected leakage, reinforced the need for developing a complete ECDA analysis.

In 2010, we carried CIS and DCVG Indirect Inspection Techniques on the pipelines. Within the
framework of NACE Conference Papers 05184 and 08143, we defined eight dig sites. After
digging we found coating damage at all the dig sites.

As part of post-assessment, we conclude that there was a need to develop separate ECDA
projects for all the river crossings, as well as Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment (ICDA) for
the Eden Yuturi Gathering pipelines.

Keywords: ECDA assessment, CIS, DCVG, indirect inspection, multiphase pipelines.

 INTRODUCTION

Catastrophic failures in pipeline systems can generate significant economic losses,

environmental havoc, and sometimes lead to human casualties. In response to these
incidents, there has been a push to develop standards and regulations to insure pipeline
integrity. Although the implementation of most of these standards has been done in developed
countries—such as the U.S.—the use of pipelines is widespread. Thus, there is a need to
adopt and implement Pipeline Integrity Management Systems in other areas and conditions.
This document presents a summary of the results of the ECDA implementation in the Eden
Yuturi Field [Eastern Ecuador].

According to NACE training Manual for Pipeline Corrosion Integrity Management there are
three possible methodologies of evaluating the pipeline integrity. These methods are:

• Hydrostatic Test
• In line inspection
• Direct Assessment:
o External Corrosion Direct Assessment
o Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment
o Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment

Additionally, the ASME B31.8 S standard recommends an evaluation of the pipeline integrity
every five years.

In the case of the Eden Yuturi 18’’ Gathering Pipelines (hereafter identified as EY18GP), a
hydrostatic test was performed as a part of the commissioning process. No further testing
(including inline inspection) was performed on the EY18GP due to many operational
difficulties. In 2010, the pipeline integrity personnel decided to implement External Corrosion
Direct Assessment as a part of the Pipeline Integrity Program. The process was developed
and implemented following NACE-SP0502-2008 standard (Pipeline Integrity Management
Programs in pipelines located in high consequence areas).

We adopted this protocol for three reasons: first, the Eden Yuturi field qualifies as an unusually
sensitive area (CFR Title 49, Part-195.6) given its location upstream of Ecuador’s Yasuni
National Park; second, more than 50% of the total production of the company is transported by
the five gathering pipelines we studied; and third, in July of 2008 a leak was detected on one
these pipelines.
BACKGROUND

Petroamazonas EP (PAM) is one of Ecuador’s two public State-owned companies. It operates

Block 15 in the Amazon Basin (among others). In 2010, PAM’s Block 15 average production
was 96,000 oil barrels per day; approximately 57% of this production was transported in the
EY18GP. The EY18GP includes three above ground pipelines (that transport approximately
2% of the field production) and six below ground pipelines (that transport 98% of the field
production).The oldest of the 18’’ gathering pipelines were constructed in the year 2002 and
the newest pipeline started its operation in 2008.

Five of the six below ground gathering pipelines were included on the ECDA analysis.
Additional to the ECDA program for the EY18GP, PAM mechanical integrity personnel together
with the Mechanical Engineering Department of Ecuador’s National Polytechnic School (MED)
developed a Pipeline Integrity Plan under the API-1106 standard, and Muhlbauer’s Pipeline
Management Manual, Third Edition, 2004. The main objective of this project was to identify the
risk level of the EY18GP and to recommend actions for its reduction to acceptable levels. This
project was developed between January and July of 2010. This project identified the threats of
external corrosion to the EY18GP; further analysis demonstrated that the implementation of
the ECDA process reduced considerably the threat of external corrosion in this pipeline
system. Figure 1 shows the distribution of EY18GP in the Eden Yuturi Field.

Figure 1. EY18GP Diagram

 ECDA PRE-ASSESMENT
Details about nomenclature, pipeline length, year of installation, and operating data
(temperature and pressure) are included in Table 1.

Table 1 Eden Yuturi 18” Gathering Pipelines Properties

Eden-Yuturi 18”gathering pipelines
Operating Operating
Length Year Temperature Pressure
Region Pipeline (m) installed (°F) (°C) (psi) (kPa)
1 Pad G – Y 7150 2004 185 85.00 294 2027.13
2 Pad J – Pad C 1210 2007 200 93.00 245 1689.28
3 Pad F – Pad A 7140 2004 200 93.00 299 2061.61
4 Pad A – EPF Line 1 4200 2002 200 93.33 193 1330.74
5 Pad A – EPF Line 2 3780 2008 200 93.00 193 1330.74
Note: All pipelines: Ø 18”, wall thickness 7.92 mm, pipe material API 5LX42 and FBE external
coating; all pipelines transport a multiphasic fluid (oil, gas and water) and have internal coating.

To check pipeline integrity, we perform two types of surveys:

• Every three-months-monitoring in EY18GP test stations. These surveys are performed

using cathodic protection current interruption in order to get ON and OFF potentials of
pipeline versus the copper – copper sulfate reference electrode (CSE). During this
survey the integrity personnel also measure soil resistivity at several depths in order to
measure this parameter in the layer where the pipeline is operating.
• CIS and DCVG surveys were performed in the EY18GP in the years 2007, 2008 and
2010. The data obtained in the surveys from the years 2008 and 2010 was stored in the
company’s Pipeline Integrity Software to facilitate the analysis. The full data from the
2007 surveys was not available. After analysis of the data from the 2008 CIS and DCVG
surveys three direct examination sites were evaluated.

Data collection Pipeline PAD A – EPF line 1 (Region 4). We conducted CIS and DCVG
surveys in 2008. The DCVG survey detected eight anomalies in this pipeline. Two direct
examinations were performed. After digging on the sites of direct examinations, all coating
defects where repaired using Polyken tape. This kind of coating can produce cathodic
protection current shielding when disbonded due its dielectrical properties. The station
numbers of these two interventions are 5+44 and 31+36 (Figure 2 and 3).
Additionally, a leak was detected in this pipeline on July 13, 2008. The station number of
this leak is 30+00 (approximately). According to the failure report the damage was caused by a
dent in the pipe (probably during construction) and external corrosion (Figure 4).

Data collection Pipeline PAD G-Y (Region 1). The 2008 DCVG survey detected three
anomalies in this pipeline. One of these three anomalies was analyzed using direct
examination. This defect is located in station number 58+06. External localized corrosion was
detected in this site. Therefore, a clamp was installed over the defect and the coating was
repaired using Polyken tape (Figures 5 and 6).

Data collection Pipeline PAD F-PAD A (Region 3), PAD J-PAD C (Region 2), and PAD
A-EPF Line 2 (Region 5). One coating defect was detected in the 2008 DCVG survey. This
defect was not analyzed using direct examination. No anomalies were detected in the 2008
DCVG survey of the pipeline Pad J – Pad C. The pipeline from Pad A – EPF Line 2 was not
surveyed in the year 2008 because it was completed after the indirect inspections were
performed.

Figure 2. Direct Examination 5+44 2008 Figure 3. Direct Examination 31+36 2008

Figure 4. Leak, External Corrosion 3+000 Figure 5. Direct Examination 58+06 2008

Figure 6. Clamp located in 58+06, 2008

ECDA Feasibility, Indirect Inspection Tools selection, and ECDA Regions.
The main reason to support the feasibility of the 2010 ECDA was that external corrosion had
been detected in 2008. Additionally, due to the previous external corrosion presence in two of
the five ECDA regions, the parameters to determine the necessity of direct examination in
these regions were made stricter.

We selected CIS and DCVG indirect inspection tools for the 2010 ECDA after consulting Table
2 of NACE ECDA SP0502-2008. Given that the EY18GP are externally coated with FBE,
installed in a non-rocky soil (clay), and in some places are covered with coatings that can
produce impress cathodic protection current shielding (such as Polyken tape or concrete
sleeves).

The primary objective of the pre-assessment in an ECDA analysis is the determination of the
ECDA regions, therefore according to section 3.5 of NACE SP-0502-2008 the following ECDA
regions were established for the EY18GP:

Table 2. ECDA Regions

Wall Previous
External Thickness Corrosion
Region Pipeline Coating (mm) Detected
1 Pad G - Y FBE 7.92 Yes
2 Pad J - Pad C FBE 7.92 No
3 Pad F - Pad A FBE 7.92 No
4 Pad A - EPF Line 1 FBE 7.92 Yes
5 Pad A - EPF Line 2 FBE 7.92 No

ECDA indirect inspection.

According to section 3.4 of NACE SP-0502-2008, we used CIS and DCVG as indirect
inspection techniques for the 2010 surveys of the EY18GP.

• Region 1, Pipeline Pad G – Y: 14 DCVG anomalies were detected in this region all of
them with a cathodic/cathodic status. Detailed information of these anomalies is shown
in Table 5. Additionally, in Figure 7 there is a detail of the alignment of CIS and DCVG
surveys.
• Region 2, Pipeline Pad J – C: 3 DCVG anomalies were detected in this region all of
cathodic status. Detailed information of these anomalies is shown in Table 6.
Additionally, in Figure 8 there is a detail of the alignment of CIS and DCVG surveys.
• Region 3, Pipeline Pad F – A: 4 DCVG anomalies were detected in this region all of
them with a cathodic/cathodic status. Detailed information of these anomalies is shown
in Table 7. Additionally, in Figure 9 there is a detail of the alignment of CIS and DCVG
surveys.
• Region 4, Pipeline Pad A – EPF Line 1: 18 DCVG anomalies were detected in this
region all of them with a cathodic/cathodic status. Detailed information of these
anomalies is shown in Table 8. Additionally, in Figure 10 there is a detail of the
alignment of CIS and DCVG surveys.
• Region 5, Pipeline Pad A – EPF Line 2: No DCVG anomalies were detected in this
region.
ECDA indirect inspection Indications classification.

In order to set the results of the 2010 surveys within the framework of NACE Conference
Papers 05184 and 08143, we developed a classification scheme detailed in Tables 3 and 4. In
Tables 5 to 8, we show the results of applying the Criteria for Prioritization of Intervention to
the results of the 2010 (CIS and DCVG) indirect inspections.

Table 3. Criteria for classification of indications

Indication
Survey
Type Minor Moderate Severe
CIS mVcse OFF More Positive mVcse OFF More Positive mVcse OFF More
than -950 and More than -900 and More Positive than -850
Negative than -900 Negative than -850.
DCVG % IR from 2.5% to 15% and % IR from 15% to 35% and %IR greater than 35%
C/C behavior. C/C behavior and C/A or A/A
behavior

Table 4. Criteria for prioritization of intervention

PRIORITIZATION
CIS ECDA WITH CIS ECDA WITHOUT
DCVG Previous Corrosion Detected Previous Corrosion Detected
SV MD MN NI SV MD MN NI
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
DCVG, SV 1 I I S S I S S S
DCVG, MD 2 I S S M S S M M
DCVG, MN 3 S S M M S M M M
DCVG, BT 4 S M M N S M M N
DCVG, NI 5 N N N N N N N N

Legend:
SV: Severe Indication I: Immediate Action Required
MD: Moderate Indication S: Scheduled Action Required
MN: Minor Indication M: Suitable for Monitoring
BT: Below threshold N: No Action Required
NI: No Indication N/A: Not Applicable
Alignment of indication for ECDA region 1

Table 5. Prioritization of intervention Pipeline PAD G - Y

ECDA ON OFF ECDA
Defect Station IR DCVG Potential Potential CIS
Nº Number % Status Criteria [-mVcse] [-mVcse] Criteria Intervention
1 0+012 22.11 C/C MD 1333 1216 NI M
2 0+846 1.48 C/C BT 1381 1236 NI N
3 2+188 6.38 C/C MN 1340 1218 NI M
4 2+226 4.68 C/C MN 1338 1210 NI M
5 2+748 2.56 C/C MN 1325 1190 NI M
6 2+814 7.72 C/C MN 1249 1100 NI M
7 2+824 4.41 C/C MN 1280 1134 NI M
8 2+926 5.04 C/C MN 1296 1121 NI M
9 2+944 15.33 C/C MD 1297 1172 NI M
10 4+926 2.96 C/C MN 1226 1102 NI M
11 5+192 3.12 C/C MN 1349 1162 NI M
12 6+058 5.98 C/C MN 1328 1159 NI M
13 6+822 45.09 C/C SV 1339 1156 NI S
14 7+074 3.27 C/C MN 1339 1156 NI M

Facilities
PAD

PT-01G

PAD

PAD

PT-01J

PAD

PT-04A

Y-EPF
PAD G

PT-01G

PAD D

PAD JJ

PT-01J

PAD C

PT-04A

Y-EPF
G

DCVG 2010
DCVG 2010 G-Y 45
DCVG MN
DCVG MD 40
DCVG SV
35

30
% IR

25

20

15

10

CIS 2010
CIS 2010 G-Y On -1.6
CIS 2010 G-Y Off
CIS MN -1.5
CIS MD
CIS SV -1.4

-1.3
-mVcse

-1.2

-1.1

-1

-0.9

-0.8

0+00 10+00 20+00 30+00 40+00 50+00 60+00 70+00

Figure 7. Indications Alignment Indirect Inspection 2010, Pad G - Y

Alignment of indication for ECDA region 2

Table 6. Prioritization of intervention Pipeline PAD J – C

ECDA ON OFF ECDA

Defect Station IR DCVG Potential Potential CIS

Nº Number % Status Criteria [-mVcse] [-mVcse] Criteria Intervention

1 0+012 6.41 C/C MN 1275 1122 NI M

2 0+096 48.08 C/C SV 1207 1149 NI S

3 1+145 45.38 C/C SV 1179 1094 NI S

Facilities
PAD

PT-01J

PAD
PAD JJ

PT-01J

PAD C
C
DCVG 2010
50
DCVG 2010 J-C
DCVG MN 45
DCVG MD
DCVG SV 40

35

30
%IR

25

20

15

10

CIS 2010
CIS 2010 J-C On -1.4
CIS 2010 J-C Off
CIS MN
CIS MD -1.3
CIS SV

-1.2
-mVcse

-1.1

-1

-0.9

0+00 2+50 5+00 7+50 10+00

Figure 8. Indications Alignment Indirect Inspection 2010, Pad J – C

Alignment of indication for ECDA region 3

Table 7. Prioritization of intervention Pipeline PAD F – A

ECDA ON OFF ECDA

Defect Station IR DCVG Potential Potential CIS

Nº Number % Status Criteria [-mVcse] [-mVcse] Criteria Intervention

1 0+012 4.53 C/C MN 1330 1195 NI M

2 0+166 18.64 C/C MD 1295 1197 NI M

3 0+172 40.57 C/C SV 1297 1210 NI S

4 1+488 8.09 C/C MN 1311 1192 NI M

Facilities
PAD

PT-02F

PT-01F

PAD
PAD FF

PT-02F

PT-01F

PAD AA
DCVG 2010 45
DCVG 2010 F-A
DCVG MN 40
DCVG MD
DCVG SV 35

30

25
% IR

20

15

10

CIS 2010
CIS 2010 F-A On -1.4
CIS 2010 F-A Off
CIS MN
CIS MD -1.3
CIS SV

-1.2
- mVcse

-1.1

-1

-0.9

0+00 10+00 20+00 30+00 40+00 50+00 60+00 70+00

Figure 9. Indications Alignment Indirect Inspection 2010, Pad F - A

Alignment of indication for ECDA region 4
Table 8. Prioritization of intervention Pipeline PAD A – EPF LINE 1
ECDA ON OFF ECDA
Defect Station IR DCVG Potential Potential CIS
Nº Number % Status Criteria [-mVcse] [-mVcse] Criteria Intervention
1 0+010 45.90 C/C SV 1128 1027 NI S
2 0+050 8.67 C/C MN 1182 1056 NI M
3 0+546 18.21 C/C MD 1122 1053 NI M
4 0+558 37.19 C/C SV 1111 1046 NI S
5 1+670 6.98 C/C MN 1252 1140 NI M
6 1+845 6.17 C/C MN 1265 1135 NI M
7 1+938 4.96 C/C MN 1294 1117 NI M
8 2+048 2.54 C/C MN 1319 1125 NI M
9 2+544 4.50 C/C MN 1329 1148 NI M
10 3+228 27.48 C/C MD 1221 1096 NI M
11 3+250 16.32 C/C MD 1194 1101 NI M
12 3+508 22.14 C/C MD 1216 1086 NI M
13 3+764 9.96 C/C MN 1246 1016 NI M
14 3+774 33.36 C/C MD 1268 1058 NI M
15 3+806 20.28 C/C MD 1252 1066 NI M
16 3+852 5.95 C/C MN 1212 995 NI M
17 3+892 23.79 C/C MD 1083 924 MN S
18 3+976 10.01 C/C MN 962 823 SV S
Facilities
PAD

PT-03A

PT-02A

EPF
PAD AA

PT-03A

PT-02A

EPF
DCVG 2010 50
DCVG A-EPF 2010
45
DCVG MN
DCVG MD 40
DCVG SV
35

30
% IR

25

20

15

10

CIS 2010 -1.4

CIS 2010 A-EPF On
CIS 2010 A-EPF Off
CIS MN -1.3
CIS MD
CIS SV
-1.2
-mVcse

-1.1

-1

-0.9

-0.8

0+00 10+00 20+00 30+00

Figure 10. Indications Alignment Indirect Inspection 2010, Pad A – EPF Line 1
Alignment of indication for ECDA region 5

We found no Indications with the indirect inspection techniques (CIS and DCVG) in this region.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Prioritization of interventions.

According to the data analysis detailed in tables 5 to 8, eight direct examination sites were
established (Scheduled) as it is detailed in table 9.

Table 9. Prioritization of intervention EY18GP

ECDA ECDA
ECDA OFF WITH WITHOUT
ECDA Station Defect IR DCVG Potential Previous Previous
Region Number Nº % Criteria [-mVcse] Corrosion Corrosion Intervention Priority
4 0+010 1 45.90 SV 1027 NI S 1
1 6+822 13 45.09 SV 1156 NI S 2
2 0+096 2 48.08 SV 1149 NI S 3
2 1+145 3 45.38 SV 1094 NI S 4
4 0+558 4 37.19 SV 1046 NI S 5
3 0+172 3 40.57 SV 1210 NI S 6
4 3+892 17 23.79 MD 924 MN S 7
4 3+976 18 10.01 MN 823 SV S 8

Direct examination ECDA Region 1. One direct examination site was performed on
pipeline form Pad G – Y- The station number of this site is 6+822 (Figure 11). Despite the fact
that general coating damage was found in this site no external corrosion was detected. The
possible cause of coating failure is the elevated temperature of operation of the pipeline
(85°C).

Direct examination ECDA Region 2. Two direct examination sites were performed on
pipeline form Pad J – C- The station number for these sites are 00+96 and 11+45 respectively.
No coating defects were found on these sites because the pipe was covered by concrete
sleeves (therefore the indirect inspection tools are not applicable for these sites).

Direct examination ECDA Region 3. One direct examination site was performed on
pipeline form Pad F – A- The station number of this site is 01+72 (Figure 12). No external
corrosion was detected although a damaged heat shrinkable sleeve was found at this site. We
believe that this coating failure was caused by improper installation procedure and lack of
surface profile preparation before the installation of the sleeve.

Direct examination ECDA Region 4. Four direct examination sites were performed on
pipeline form Pad A – EPF Line 1- The station number for these sites are 00+10 (Figure 13),
05+58 (Figure 14), 38+92 (Figure 15) and 39+76 (Figure 16) respectively. At these sites, we
found damaged coating, but no signs of external corrosion.
 • In 00+10 the main cause of the DCVG anomaly was the contact between the pipeline
and a below ground support.
• In 05+58 severe coating damage was found at 6 pm in the pipeline. The possible cause
of coating failure is the elevated operation temperature (greater than 90°C).
• In 38+92 minor coating damage was found; we also found a concrete sleeve, therefore
indirect inspection tool (CIS and DCVG) are not suitable.
• In 39+76 minor coating damages were detected. The DCVG survey found a defect in
this site because the contact between the pipeline and the below ground support
produced a fake indication.

Coating Repairs. Coating repair was performed in six of the eight intervention sites
(Figures 17 to 22), because two sites from Region 3, pipeline F-A were covered by concrete
sleeves. The pipelines were sand blasted up to SSPC SP 10 and coated with a 100% solid
two- components coating. Parameters such as temperature and environmental humidity were
controlled before and during cutting application. After an adequate cure-time, Dry Film
Thickness (DFT) was controlled according to SSPC SP PA-2 1996. Finally a ‘high voltage
holiday test’ was performed in all the coating repairs with a voltage according to the coating
manufacturer specifications.

Calculation of remaining life. Calculation of remaining life is not applicable because we did
not find external corrosion. Additionally wall thickness measurements using Ultrasonic Test
Scan A was performed in all the dig sites. We did not found evidence of internal corrosion.

Post Assessment.

As part of the ECDA process, one sample CIS & DCVG null (in which no indications of
corrosion were found by using the indirect inspection tools) dig site was selected and
analyzed. No coating damage or external corrosion was detected at this site (Figure 23).

Figure 11. Direct Examination 68+22 2010 Figure 12. Direct Examination 01+72 2010
Figure 13. Direct Examination 00+10 2010 Figure 14. Direct Examination 05+58 2010

Figure 15. Direct Examination 38+92 2010 Figure 16. Direct Examination 39+76 2010

Figure 17. Pad G – Y , 68+22, 2010 Figure 18. Pad F – A , 01+72, 2010
Figure 19. Pad A– EPF , 00+10, 2010 Figure 20. Pad A – EPF , 05+58, 2010

Figure 21. Pad A – EPF , 38+92, 2010 Figure 22. Pad A – EPF , 39+72, 2010

Figure 23. ECDA validation site, no coating

defect detected 2010.
 CONCLUSION

• Although we found coating damage in six of the eight direct examination sites, we found
no signs of external corrosion. This shows that the EY18GP’s cathodic protection
system is working adequately.
• The contact between below ground supports and the pipelines generate fake DCVG
indications.
• ECDA methodology is not applicable for concrete coated pipelines due to the electrical
shielding produced by the concrete.
• Suitable inspection techniques must be determined for the EY18GP in river crossings
and road crossings due to the concrete coat used on these places.
• An Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment (ICDA) must be implemented for the EY18GP
in order assess internal corrosion for this important pipeline system.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express his gratitude to all the Department of Maintenance at
Petroamazonas EP for their constant support in order to develop this important project.
Additionally, the author thanks NACE for the quality of the training programs, standards and
technical information that were provided for the development of this study. Finally the author
acknowledges Dr. Cristian Melo of Florida International University for his comments on an
earlier draft.

REFERENCES

1. NACE Standard Practice SP0502-2008, “Pipeline External Corrosion Direct

Assessment Methodology”, Houston, 2008.

2. NACE 2008. Conference Paper No.08143, Evaluation of Classification and Prioritization

Criteria Based on the Results of Direct Examinations, S.M. Segall, P. Eng. R.A.

Gummow, P. Eng. Corrosion Service Company Limited.

3. NACE 2005. Conference Paper No.05184, Results from an ECDA Plan, S.M. Segall, P.

Eng. R.A. Gummow, P. Eng. Corrosion Service Company Limited.

4. NACE Pipeline Corrosion Integrity Management Training Manual, Houston, 2009.

5. Final Report CIS and DCVG Surveys in the EY18GP, Petroenergy, 2008.

6. Final Report CIS and DCVG Surveys in the EY18GP, Petroenergy, 2010.