FEED Integrity Checks

AIMS-PI-PROC-0408 Rev 1

Custodian: Team Leader - Pipeline Integrity
Issued by: Team Leader - Pipeline Integrity
Date: 24
th
May 2010
Revision History
Rev Date Description By Reviewed Approved
a 27-03-08 Draft RSt RSh RSt
b 26-09-08 Issued for Review RSt RMac RSt
0 28-10-08 Issued for Use RSt RMac RSt
1 24-05-10 Re-Issued for Use RSt BG GC


Richard Stentiford
2010.06.14 11:31:36 +08'00'
Bob
Greenwood
Digitally signed by Bob Greenwood
DN: CN = Bob Greenwood, C = AU, O =
iicorr, OU = Pipeline Integrity
Reason: I have reviewed this document
Date: 2010.06.14 11:33:35 +08'00'
Digitally signed by Greg Cowley
DN: cn=Greg Cowley, o=Santos,
ou=Pipeline Integrity,
[email protected], c=AU
Date: 2010.06.28 13:18:28 +09'30'
Asset Integrity Management System - Onshore Pipelines
FEED Integrity Checks
AIMS-PI-PROC-0408 Rev 1

Uncontrolled Copy When Printed Page 2 of 15
Table of Contents:
1 Purpose ....................................................................................................... 3
2 Scope ........................................................................................................... 3
3 Definitions ................................................................................................... 3
4 Responsibilities .......................................................................................... 3
5 Procedure .................................................................................................... 4
6 References ................................................................................................ 12
7 Appendix A - Pipeline Integrity FEED Review Checklist ....................... 14
8 Appendix B - FEED Checks Sheet ........................................................... 15

Asset Integrity Management System - Onshore Pipelines
FEED Integrity Checks
AIMS-PI-PROC-0408 Rev 1

Uncontrolled Copy When Printed Page 3 of 15
1 Purpose
This procedure defines checks to be carried out on flowline FEED documents with respect to the
integrity management of the flowlines during their operational phase.
2 Scope
This procedure applies to predominantly gas flowline designs including the lease spool connecting
the wellhead to the flowline. The application of this procedure to oil flowlines is minimal. Aspects of
this procedure may also be applied to more significant pipelines FEED, but the review of the
design for these types of lines should be more rigorous due to their increased importance.
3 Definitions
API American Petroleum Institute
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CO
2
Carbon Dioxide
ER Electrical Resistance (Corrosion Probe)
FEED Front End Engineering & Design
H
2
S Hydrogen Sulphide
ILI In-Line Inspection
MAOP Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure
MIC Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion
OPEX Operating Expenditure
P&ID Process & Instrumentation Diagram
PAMS Pipeline Asset Management Services (Contractor)
PIP Project Initiation Package
PSV Pressure Safety Valve
ROC Remote Operations Controllers
RP Recommended Practice
RTU Remote Terminal Unit
4 Responsibilities
Role Responsibilities
Connections Engineer Preparation of the FEED document prior to installation of the facilities according to
applicable Santos Facility Engineering Standards.
Pipeline Integrity
Engineer
Review and acceptance / rejection of the FEED package as suitable for the ongoing
integrity of the flowline during its operational phase.
Team Leader Pipeline
Integrity
Arbitration between Connections Group and Pipeline Integrity Group where issues
are identified in the FEED that have not been sufficiently considered / documented.

Asset Integrity Management System - Onshore Pipelines
FEED Integrity Checks
AIMS-PI-PROC-0408 Rev 1

Uncontrolled Copy When Printed Page 4 of 15
5 Procedure
The primary concern of the Pipeline Integrity Group with respect to reviewing flowline FEED
packages is to ensure the corrosion and / or erosion protection considerations are adequate to
enable the flowline to survive its design life with minimal risk of failure, and without requiring
excessive resources to manage ongoing integrity.
It is the designers responsibility to consider how threats will affect the flowline during its life and
select appropriate materials / sizes / mitigation to minimise the likelihood of failure through known
deterioration mechanisms. Santos has a relatively high failure rate for flowline connections
predominantly due to inadequate mitigation of internal (and some external) corrosion deterioration.
If adequate mitigation is not considered at the FEED stage, significant Operating Expenditure
(OPEX) can be consumed trying to maintain flowline operation, where better Capital Expenditure
(CAPEX) decisions may have prevented this.
The main threat mechanisms to the integrity of the wellhead connection arrangement are
described in general terms in the Pipeline Corrosion Management Strategy
1
along with methods
for monitoring, mitigation and inspection, and are summarised here to aid further discussion:
Acid Gas Corrosion - combination of liquid water, CO
2
and / or H
2
S gas leading to an
acidic solution which attacks carbon steel causing pitting and general wall thinning
Erosion - mechanical impingement by liquid and / or solid particles leading to general
wall thinning
External Corrosion - deterioration due to acidic conditions in surrounding soil coming into
contact with pipe wall, again liquid water must be present for this to occur
These deterioration mechanisms must be considered and documented in the FEED package to
demonstrate pipeline integrity will not be compromised during the proposed design life of the
flowline. As per the Santos Design Guide
2
, the FEED package must contain a section on:
Flowline connection considerations re. erosion, corrosion, velocity limits etc. for
o Wellhead spooling
o Flowline(s)
The rest of this procedure will describe the checks that the Pipeline Integrity Engineer shall make
to ensure the threat mechanisms have been adequately considered.

1
Pipeline Corrosion Management Strategy, Santos Document Ref: AIMS-PI-PROC-0002
2
Design Guide for Gas Wellhead Connection Design, Santos Document Ref: 1515-10-G005
Asset Integrity Management System - Onshore Pipelines
FEED Integrity Checks
AIMS-PI-PROC-0408 Rev 1

Uncontrolled Copy When Printed Page 5 of 15
5.1 Velocity Limit Considerations
Fluid velocity influences both internal corrosion and erosion threats so velocity limit considerations
shall be discussed prior to the specific threat checks themselves. The guidance provided by API-
RP-14E should be followed; however, the FEED must include velocity checks for all components in
the connection design and not just the 1 spool, i.e. accounting for the different materials
selected and dimensions of pipework. For example the following velocity checks have been carried
out using Raven #1 data:
Table 1 - Sample Raven #1 Original Connection Velocity Checks
Component Material
API-RP-14E
C Value
Limiting
Velocity (m/s)
Actual Velocity
(m/s)
Pass / Fail
Check
NB 80 1 Spool Duplex 200 20.55 12.38 Pass
NB 80 Choke Valve Duplex 200 20.55 12.38 Pass
NB 100 2 Spool Carbon Steel 150 (100) 15.41 (10.27) 7.11 Pass
NB 100 3 Spool Carbon Steel 150 (100) 15.41 (10.27) 7.11 Pass
NB 100 4 Spool Carbon Steel 150 (100) 15.41 (10.27) 7.11 Pass
NB 100 5 Spool Carbon Steel 150 (100) 15.41 (10.27) 7.11 Pass
NB 100 6 Spool Carbon Steel 150 (100) 15.41 (10.27) 7.11 Pass
NB 150 Flowline Carbon Steel 150 (100) 15.41 (10.27) 2.63 Pass
Note: The values calculated assume no solids in the gas stream. Bracketed values are for no inhibition.
All the components in Table 1 appear to pass the velocity checks; however, it should be noted that
the orifice in the choke valve may be significantly smaller than its nominal bore, which in turn
means that fluid velocities experienced at the outlet of the choke orifice will be much higher. For
example, a choke orifice of 50% nominal bore leads to velocities in the order of 49.52 m/s, which
would significantly exceed the velocity limit determined using the API-RP-14E guidance, even for a
corrosion resistant material such as duplex stainless steel.
Velocity limits may be exceeded by a small margin for short periods of the wells life. In such
cases, it is the designers responsibility to establish how this shall be monitored and to establish
what happens when this excursion occurs for longer than anticipated.
As well as demonstrating that the velocity checks have been carried out using pipework nominal
bore values, the FEED must also consider alternative scenarios as discussed previously (i.e.
choke example) and should examine what happens when corrosion inhibitor mitigation fails
3
and /
or solids are present
4
. This will provide additional justification for improved well testing, sand
monitoring and the monitoring of inhibitor injection reliability, which will be discussed further in the
following sections.
Where new flowlines are connected to existing pipelines, the capacity of the existing pipelines
should be checked to ensure there is sufficient capacity for the new flowlines fluid flow i.e. the
combined fluid flow does not exceed the allowable velocities in all sections of the downstream
network.
Where the FEED has not documented that all the components in the connection have had velocity
checks carried out, or does not consider the effects of inhibitor failure or solids production, then the
Pipeline Integrity Engineer should inform the Connections Engineer that the requirements of the
Santos Design Guide
2
have not been met, and therefore the FEED will not be accepted / approved.

3
The corrosion inhibitor may be unable to create / maintain a protective film on the inside surface of the pipe wall when fluid velocities
exceed ~20 m/s due to the shear force between the fluid and the pipe wall overcoming the bond between the inhibitor molecules and the
steel surface. Master Flo Valve Inc, the makers of Santos preferred choke valve, state that, In corrosive applications the selected body
material should be suitable for operation without the assistance of corrosion inhibitors. Higher velocities may diminish the benefit of
inhibitors in valve bodies. This implies that in most cases stainless steel bodied chokes should be used in the Cooper Basin.
4
The presence of solids in the fluid flow may directly cause erosion of the pipe wall itself and / or may remove any protective inhibitor
film thus enabling unmitigated corrosion to occur.
Asset Integrity Management System - Onshore Pipelines
FEED Integrity Checks
AIMS-PI-PROC-0408 Rev 1

Uncontrolled Copy When Printed Page 6 of 15
5.2 Acid Gas Corrosion Considerations
5.2.1 Corrosivity
Gas flowlines are considered to operate in corrosive service if the absolute partial pressure
5
of CO
2

in the pipeline exceeds ~200 KPaa. At the common design pressures used for Cooper Basin gas
flowline design, this applies to almost all flowlines
6
so the corrosivity of the gas has been further
categorised as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 - CO
2
Partial Pressure Corrosivity Criteria

Based on the predicted corrosivity of the gas, the designer may apply the following typical
mitigation and monitoring guidance to the connection design for ongoing integrity management:
Severe Corrosivity
o Duplex choke and 1 spool to provide protection whilst velocities reduce
o Duplicate injector systems to improve overall injection reliability
o Chemical tank level monitoring, alarmed at area control room & linked to Enable
o Corrosion probe (ER) installed in lease spool low point to measure corrosion rate
o Water sampling facilities at the lease spool and end of the flowline
o Corrosion allowance of 3 mm
High Corrosivity
o Duplex choke and 1 spool to provide protection whilst velocities reduce
o Duplicate injector systems to improve overall injection reliability
o Chemical tank level monitoring, alarmed at area control room & linked to Enable
o Water sampling facilities at the lease spool and end of the flowline
o Corrosion allowance of 2 mm
Moderate Corrosivity
o Duplex choke and 1 spool to provide protection whilst velocities reduce
o Single injector system
o Chemical tank level monitoring, alarmed at area control room & linked to Enable
o Water sampling facilities at the lease spool and end of the flowline
o Corrosion allowance of 1 mm

5
Partial pressure is calculated by multiplying the CO
2
mole% by the absolute pressure in the gas connection, based on data from the
wells Project Initiation Plan (PIP).
6
With a typical design pressure of 11.4 MPag, the CO
2
content limit for corrosive service is just over 1.7 mole%.
Asset Integrity Management System - Onshore Pipelines
FEED Integrity Checks
AIMS-PI-PROC-0408 Rev 1

Uncontrolled Copy When Printed Page 7 of 15
Low Corrosivity
o Single inhibitor injector with manual level checks by Pipeline Asset Management
Services (PAMS) / Operations personnel
o Water sampling facilities at the lease spool and end of the flowline
o Corrosion allowance of 1 mm
Negligible Corrosivity
o Corrosion allowance (to standard pipe wall thickness) to mitigate very low rates of
acid gas corrosion
5.2.2 Inhibitor Injection Reliability Considerations
In corrosive service, Santos uses corrosion inhibitor injection as the primary mitigation of the
corrosion of carbon steel materials. The availability of corrosion inhibitor is the key aspect to the
successful mitigation of acid gas corrosion and should therefore be taken extremely seriously.
Availability is the percentage of time the inhibitor injection system is able to inject the correct
amount of inhibitor into the pipeline; some typical percentages and their equivalent down-times are
presented in Table 2. The effect these values have on a typical Severe corrosivity category
flowlines integrity is illustrated in Figure 2.
Table 2 - Inhibitor Availability Values
% Availability Days Downtime (Per Year) Comment
99.9 0.37 3 day downtime per year extremely unlikely
99.0 3.65 Probably the highest availability that can be achieved
95.0 18.25 Suggested as upper limit for design purposes
90.0 36.50 Suggested lower limit for design purposes

Figure 2 indicates the example flowline is unlikely to last its expected design life of 20 years based
on inhibitor availability experience. No matter what availability is used in the design, the designer
must specify how the injection performance is to be monitored and what measures should be taken
by operations personnel in the event of inhibitor availability being inadequate e.g.
Inhibitor level should be measured using tank level transmitters connected to the
wellheads Remote Operations Controller (ROC) Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) to
establish near real-time rate-based inhibitor usage that mirrors the flowlines gas
production; injection should be alarmed to indicate injector failure
In the event of inhibitor injection failure, the affected flowline should be shut-in within a
few days if the injector cannot be repaired and brought back on-line; where repairs take
longer than a few days, then the flowline should be blown down to ambient pressure to
reduce the corrosivity of the fluids within the line
Asset Integrity Management System - Onshore Pipelines
FEED Integrity Checks
AIMS-PI-PROC-0408 Rev 1

Uncontrolled Copy When Printed Page 8 of 15
Figure 2 - Inhibitor Availability vs. Integrity
a) Availability = 99.9%; No Failure
Year20
Year19
Year18
Year17
Year16
Year15
Year14
Year13
Year12
Year11
Year10
Year9
Year8
Year7
Year6
Year5
Year4
Year3
Year2
Year1
Year0 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
DefectAxialLength(mm)
D
e
f
e
c
t

D
e
p
t
h

(
m
m
)
NomWT
veTolWT
DesignCA
DNVCA
ASME B31G
NotApplicable
ModifiedB31G
DNVRPF101
LeakRupture
Feature
Timeline
b) Availability = 99.0%; Failure: Year 11
Year20
Year19
Year18
Year17
Year16
Year15
Year14
Year13
Year12
Year11
Year10
Year9
Year8
Year7
Year6
Year5
Year4
Year3
Year2
Year1
Year0 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
DefectAxialLength(mm)
D
e
f
e
c
t

D
e
p
t
h

(
m
m
)
NomWT
veTolWT
DesignCA
DNVCA
ASME B31G
NotApplicable
ModifiedB31G
DNVRPF101
LeakRupture
Feature
Timeline
c) Availability = 95.0%; Failure: Year 3
Year7
Year6
Year5
Year4
Year3
Year2
Year1
Year0 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
DefectAxialLength(mm)
D
e
f
e
c
t

D
e
p
t
h

(
m
m
)
NomWT
veTolWT
DesignCA
DNVCA
ASME B31G
NotApplicable
ModifiedB31G
DNVRPF101
LeakRupture
Feature
Timeline
d) Availability = 90.0%; Failure Year: 2
Year3
Year2
Year1
Year0 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
DefectAxialLength(mm)
D
e
f
e
c
t

D
e
p
t
h

(
m
m
)
NomWT
veTolWT
DesignCA
DNVCA
ASME B31G
NotApplicable
ModifiedB31G
DNVRPF101
LeakRupture
Feature
Timeline
Note: Raven 4 used as example: CO
2
Content: 44.74 mole %, Pressure: 8.5 MPa, Temperature: 65 C, Wall
Thickness: 4.2 mm, Diameter: 168.3 mm, Steel Grade: API-5L-X56, MAOP: 11.4 MPa. Failure is defined as when
the corrosion timeline crosses the Modified B31G criteria line.
The use of duplicate injection systems attempts to improve the overall availability of inhibitor
chemical entering the flowline; this is demonstrated in Table 3.
Table 3 - Multiple Injector Reliability / Availability
of Injectors (i) Individual Reliability / Availability (A
i
) Overall Reliability / Availability (A
o
)
1 90% A
o
= 1-(1-A
i
)
i
= 90.0%
2 90% A
o
= 1-(1-A
i
)
i
= 99.0%
3 90% A
o
= 1-(1-A
i
)
i
= 99.9%

Based on the information in Table 3, it is clear that reliability / availability figures > 99% can only be
achieved with multiple independent injectors with each injector providing a reliability / availability of
~90%.
Asset Integrity Management System - Onshore Pipelines
FEED Integrity Checks
AIMS-PI-PROC-0408 Rev 1

Uncontrolled Copy When Printed Page 9 of 15
5.2.3 Inhibitor Tank Capacity
In addition to the number of injection systems considered for installation at the wellhead
connection, sufficient chemical storage capacity must be installed to provide adequate chemical to
enable the longest possible interval between tank top-ups. This reduces the resource requirement
and driving time (risk) involved in the top-up activity. The current shelf life of the inhibitor chemical
is around 6 months (~180 days) therefore sufficient chemical needs to be stored for this period at
the required injection rate. The required injection rate is based on guidance provided in the
Pipeline CMS
1
, and is presented in Table 4 as a worked example.
Table 4 - Tindilpie 6 Inhibitor Injection Rate and Tank Capacity Example
Basis for Injection Rate Rate Capacity Required
1 pint (0.473 litres) inhibitor / 1 mmscf of gas flow for gas
flow of 8.5 mmscf/d
4.02 litres/day 724 litres
200 ppm in water; water at 9 bbl/mmscf (1.43 m
3
/mmscf) for
gas flow of 8.5 mmscf/d
2.43 litres/day 437 litres
1 m on inside surface
7
of 168.3 mm, WT 4.2 mm, 4,243 m
long flowline (surface area = 2,131 m
2
)
2.13 litres/day 383 litres
The applied rate should initially be the greatest of those
evaluated above rounded up to the nearest whole litre
5.00 litres/day 900 litres

Table 4 indicates this connection would require 900 litres of inhibitor storage capacity, i.e. a 1,000
litre bulky bin, for 180 days, rather than the single 340 litre tank that was actually installed. The 340
litre tank will require filling ~3 times over 6 months versus the bulky bins one fill.
5.2.4 Pigging Facility Considerations
In a gas well connections flowline, water originates from two sources:
Condensation - during initial production the gas at the well-head should be relatively dry,
however, as it cools and loses pressure along the flowline, water will condense from the
gas and come in contact with the pipe wall. The pure condensed water and dissolved
CO
2
from the gas will have a low pH i.e. will be more corrosive
Produced directly from the well - as the reservoir depletes, water will be produced from
the reservoir itself. Formation water contains impurities which reduce its acidity i.e. the
formation water will buffer the pH of pure water and CO
2
reducing corrosivity
Once the water is in the flowline, and depending on the topography, water hold-up may occur
enabling corrosion at uphill sections of the flowlines route whilst flowing, and in low spots whilst
the flowline is shut-in. In addition, the condensed water may continually wet the top and side
surfaces of the flowline where the inhibitor cannot reach (only carried in the liquid water phase in
the bottom of the pipe). Pigging provides a valuable mitigation function by the following actions:
Sweeping held-up water from the uphill sections and low spots in the line
Sweeping condensed water from the top and sides of the pipe
Mixing water and inhibitor chemical
Despite the advantages of pigging, the modifications required to a flowline and the manpower
required to implement a regular pigging programme should be considered with respect to the
overall value and length of the flowline. Flowlines less than 500 m in length do not normally justify
pigging facilities as they are usually too short for significant water to condense from the gas. Higher
corrosivity and longer flowlines should have their topography reviewed with respect to water hold-
up and be considered for the installation of Argus Pigging Valves to enable operational pigging

7
For long flowlines (>10 km) caution should be used as this criterion estimates very large dose requirements. This is most likely
because the whole flowlines internal surface is not water wet, only the section at the bottom of the line is wet.
Asset Integrity Management System - Onshore Pipelines
FEED Integrity Checks
AIMS-PI-PROC-0408 Rev 1

Uncontrolled Copy When Printed Page 10 of 15
activities. For particularly high value flowlines, in terms of production, the flowline may require the
capability for ILI so this should also be considered in the FEED.
Where pigging is recommended, a review of the liquids handling facilities of any downstream
facilities should be carried out to evaluate whether the additional liquid slug, that will arrive with a
pig, will upset the downstream process.
5.2.5 Corrosion Allowance Considerations
Corrosion allowance is additional wall thickness added to a pipeline that can be corroded should
any applied mitigation fail, but does not affect the pressure retaining ability of the pipe. For a fully
corrosion mitigated pipeline, an underlying corrosion rate of 0.05 mm/yr is normally applied hence
the corrosion allowance should be a minimum of this rate multiplied by the expected life of the
flowline.
If minimal corrosion allowance is considered due to the pressure decline likely as a gas reservoir
depletes, the FEED document must demonstrate a basis for this design consideration and include
guidance as to how this will be monitored.
Alternatively, the flowline should have a nominal 1 mm of corrosion allowance as a minimum for
corrosive service; this allowance should be increased for High corrosivity (2 mm) and Severe
corrosivity (3 mm) service to account for the increased deterioration rate during periods of poor
mitigation.
5.2.6 Alternate Materials
The FEED should consider alternative materials for Severe and High corrosivity service as
discussed in Section 5.2.1; though it is expected that such materials will not be specified due to the
higher CAPEX involved, despite the reduction in OPEX that such material selection could offer.
The FEED should state this as the decision to proceed with carbon steel.

Where any of the considerations mentioned above have not been considered and documented in
the FEED package, then the Pipeline Integrity Engineer should inform the Connections Engineer
that the requirements of the Santos Design Guide
2
have not been met, and the FEED will not be
accepted / approved.
5.3 Erosion Considerations
Erosion considerations are only required at the well connection due to the probable high velocities
associated with the smaller diameter piping components upstream of the flowline. With sand-free
reservoir fluids, the velocity limits described previously in Section 5.1 should be adequate in
preventing erosion related failures provided these considerations are fully complied with.
Where the reservoir fluid contains continuous and significant quantities of sand, then further
consideration may include:
Increase choke size to reduce velocity of fluid flow at outlet
Increase pipe work diameter to reduce velocity of fluid flow
Install erosion monitoring facility to measure erosion directly
Anticipate failure and increase frequency of inspection to forecast replacement
The issue with sand production is knowing whether it is continuous and / or significant. There is
anecdotal evidence that sand is produced in the Cooper Basin as it has to be removed from
separators in process plants, but currently it is unknown where exactly the sand comes from.
Until clear evidence of continuous and / or significant sand production is provided through more
thorough well testing it will be assumed that it does not occur in the Cooper Basin and the velocity
limits discussed previously shall be used to address erosion issues.
Asset Integrity Management System - Onshore Pipelines
FEED Integrity Checks
AIMS-PI-PROC-0408 Rev 1

Uncontrolled Copy When Printed Page 11 of 15
5.4 External Corrosion Considerations
External corrosion is primarily a threat to buried carbon steel gas flowline connections. To mitigate
this, the flowline is normally coated with Fusion Bonded Epoxy (FBE) and has some form of
Cathodic Protection (CP) applied.
Surface-laid above-ground oil flowlines will also suffer from external corrosion, but this will normally
be limited to the lower half of the line as it sits on the ground. As surface laid oil flowlines are not
normally coated, it is essential that the FEED considers methods of mitigating the external
corrosion, such as lifting and supporting the line using approved supports.
Unmitigated soil corrosion rates in the Cooper Basin may be as low as 0.1 mm/yr (based on buried
ER probes in the Moomba Plant), however, over a 25 year life this equates to metal loss of up to
2.5 mm which may threaten the integrity of the pipelines pressure containment capacity. It should
also be considered that unmitigated corrosion rates in salt pans and other soil types can be up to 5
times higher than the low rates measured within the Moomba Plant.
Where any of the considerations mentioned above have not been considered and documented in
the FEED package, then the Pipeline Integrity Engineer should inform the Connections Engineer
that the requirements of the Santos Design Guide
2
have not been met, and the FEED will not be
accepted / approved.
5.5 FEED IMP
Should a FEED Integrity Management Plan not be included in the FEED package, then the
Pipeline Integrity Engineer should inform the Connections Engineer that the requirements of the
Santos Design Guide
2
have not been met, and the FEED will not be accepted / approved.
5.6 Pipeline Integrity Review
For new flowline connections it is important that these lines are included in the next planned
Pipeline Integrity Review
8
. This is to ensure that conditions assumed by the designer are updated
with actual conditions to validate the design as adequate for the purposes of ongoing integrity
management. Where the design is subsequently assessed as inadequate, corrective action shall
be implemented and a summary of this fed back to the Connections group for consideration for
future connection FEED.


8
Pipeline Integrity Review Procedure, Santos Document Ref: AIMS-PI-PROC-0005
Asset Integrity Management System - Onshore Pipelines
FEED Integrity Checks
AIMS-PI-PROC-0408 Rev 1

Uncontrolled Copy When Printed Page 12 of 15
6 References
Table 5 Santos Facilities Engineering Standards
1515-10-G005 Design Guide for Gas Wellhead Connection Design
1515-10-G006 Design Guide for Oil Wellhead Connection Design
1515-10-G007 Design Guide for Fluid Flow Calculations
1515-50-D002 Design Practice for Valves
1515-50-G001 Design Guide for Piping
1515-50-G007 Design Guide for Gas and Oil Gathering Systems

Table 6 Santos Procedures
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

AIMS-PI-PROC-0001 Pipeline Asset Management System (PAMS)
AIMS-PI-PROC-0002 Pipeline Corrosion Management Strategy (CMS)
AIMS-PI-PROC-0003 Pipeline Safety and Operating Plan
AIMS-PI-PROC-0004 Integrity Management Planning
AIMS-PI-PROC-0005 Pipeline Integrity Review
AIMS-PI-PROC-0006 Performance Monitoring - KPIs
AIMS-PI-PROC-0007 Records Management
AIMS-PI-PROC-0008 5-Year Plan
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

AIMS-PI-PROC-0101 Corrosion Rate Monitoring
AIMS-PI-PROC-0102 Water Sampling & Analysis
AIMS-PI-PROC-0103 Pig Trash Sampling & Analysis
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

AIMS-PI-PROC-0201 Operational Pigging
AIMS-PI-PROC-0202 Chemical Injection System Management
AIMS-PI-PROC-0203 Pipeline Batch Chemical Treatment
AIMS-PI-PROC-0204 Pig Barrel Treatment
AIMS-PI-PROC-0205 CP System Operation & Maintenance
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n

AIMS-PI-PROC-0301 Pig Barrel Inspection
AIMS-PI-PROC-0302 Lease Spool Inspection
AIMS-PI-PROC-0303 ROW Patrol & Inspection
AIMS-PI-PROC-0304 In-Line Inspection
AIMS-PI-PROC-0305 Direct Assessment Inspection
AIMS-PI-PROC-0306 Coating Defect Inspection
O
t
h
e
r

(
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
)

AIMS-PI-PROC-0401 Cooper Basin Pipeline Failure Recovery Plan
AIMS-PI-PROC-0402 Failure Investigation
AIMS-PI-PROC-0403 Abandonment & Suspension
AIMS-PI-PROC-0404 Selection & Treatment of Water
AIMS-PI-PROC-0405 In-Direct Assessment
AIMS-PI-PROC-0406 Integrity & Defect Assessment
AIMS-PI-PROC-0407 Project / Programme Implementation
AIMS-PI-PROC-0408 FEED Integrity Checks
AIMS-PI-PROC-0409 Inspection Target Co-ordinates Evaluation [This Document]

Asset Integrity Management System - Onshore Pipelines
FEED Integrity Checks
AIMS-PI-PROC-0408 Rev 1

Uncontrolled Copy When Printed Page 13 of 15
Table 7 Other References
API-RP-14E Recommended Practice for Design and Installation of Offshore Production
Platform Piping Systems
NORSOK P-001 Process Design

Asset Integrity Management System - Onshore Pipelines
FEED Integrity Checks
AIMS-PI-PROC-0408 Rev 1

Uncontrolled Copy When Printed Page 14 of 15
7 Appendix A - Pipeline Integrity FEED Review Checklist
Well / Flowline Name:
FEED Reference:
Reviewing Integrity Engineer: Date:
Velocity Checks //NA //NA
Choke velocity limit considered (open) ? Lease spool velocity limit considered ?
Choke velocity limit considered (partially closed) ? Flowline velocity limit considered ?
Are any velocity limits exceeded ? Has risk assessment been carried out ?
Downstream facility velocity limits ? Are any downstream velocity limits exceeded ?
Acid Gas Corrosivity & Mitigation Checks
Has gas corrosivity been categorised ? Has corrosion rate been calculated correctly ?
Has inhibitor availability been applied correctly ? Does availability match injector arrangement ?
Is appropriate corrosion allowance specified ? Is stainless steel choke body specified ?
Is inhibitor injection rate specified correctly ? Is adequate tank capacity specified ?
Is inhibitor tank level monitoring specified ? Is level monitoring connected to the ROC ?
Is corrosion monitoring probe specified ? Are water sample locations specified correctly ?
Have alternative materials been considered ? Have pigging facilities been considered ?
Has any downstream facility liquids handling review been carried out where pigging has been recommended ?
Remarks:
Erosion Checks
Is sand production expected ? If , describe documented mitigation below.

External Corrosion Checks
Is flowline buried ? Is FBE coating specified ?
Is CP specified to provide additional protection ? Has soil corrosion rate been considered ?
Has lifting been specified for surface laid lines ? Have approved supports been specified ?
Remarks:
FEED IMP
Has a FEED IMP been included ? If , the FEED cannot be accepted.
FEED Acceptance
FEED Accepted If not summarise reasons below + note other issues.


Asset Integrity Management System - Onshore Pipelines
FEED Integrity Checks
AIMS-PI-PROC-0408 Rev 1

Uncontrolled Copy When Printed Page 15 of 15
8 Appendix B - FEED Checks Sheet
A spreadsheet has been prepared to assist / guide the FEED checks described in this document
and can be found in the Excel FEED Check Sheet [Latest Date].xls workbook.
FlowlineFEEDIntegrityChecks
DocumentControl MAOPContainmentWallThicknessChecks InternalCorrosionMitigation
WellName: Component Min.WT CA Units InhibitorDoseRate Initial Maximum Units
FEEDReference(including rev.): 1Spool 2.41 N/A mm BasedonGasFlow: 3.79 4.26 litres/day
Preparedby: 0.00 00Jan00 Metering Spool 4.43 4.13 mm Basedon200ppminwater: 0.51 0.57 litres/day
Reviewedby: 0.00 00Jan00 Flowline 3.45 2.15 mm Basedon1mfilmonpipewall: litres/day
Approvedby: 0.00 Notes: ProposedInitialRate: litres/day
InputData Initial Maximum Units Ullage(for6months) / Tank Type: litres/ ~
Natureof HydrocarbonLiquid: ~ InjectorArrangementRequired: !Override!
GasRate: 8.00 9.00 mmscf/day CorrosionProbeRequired: ~
HCLiquidRate: 0 0 bbl/day VelocityChecks LiquidHoldupExpected: ~
Water/ GasRatio: 2 2 bbl/mmscf Choke(fully open): Initial Maximum Units Pigging FacilitiesRequired: ~
HCLiquid/ GasRatio: 3 3 bbl/mmscf CValue: ~ FlowlineInletInternalCorrosion Initial Average Units
SurfaceTemperature(flowing): ~ 190 F MixtureDensity: 94.53 94.53 kg/m3 InitialFluidCorrosivity: Moderate Low ~
~ 88 C 5.90 5.90 lb/ft3 RawCorrosionRate: 31.45 17.53 mm/yr
SITHP: ~ 2500 psig Velocity Limit: 25.09 25.09 m/s SampledWaterpH: ~
~ 17.2 MPag Velocity: 10.26 11.54 m/s pHBufferedCorrosionRate: 15.96 11.08 mm/yr
FTHP: ~ 870 psig Choke(notfully open): InhibitorAvailability: %
~ 6.0 MPag 1.90 MinimumChokeOpening: % OilWetting Mitigation: ~ ~ %
ExpectedWellLife: years CValue: ~ Attempt#1BOLCorrosionRate: 0.15 0.12 mm/yr
Composition N2: mole% MixtureDensity: 94.53 94.53 kg/m3 Attempt#1Remaining Life(BOL): 14.15 17.82 yr
CO2: mole% 5.90 5.90 lb/ft3 AdditionalMitigationRequired: ~
C1: mole% Velocity Limit: 25.09 25.09 m/s Pigging: ~
C2: mole% Velocity: 10.48 11.79 m/s BatchTreatment: ~
C3: mole% 1Spool: Attempt#2BOLCorrosionRate: ~ ~ mm/yr
iC4: mole% CValue: ~ Attempt#2Remaining Life(BOL): ~ ~ yr
nC4: mole% MixtureDensity: 94.53 94.53 kg/m3 Notes:
iC5: mole% 5.90 5.90 lb/ft3
nC5: mole% Velocity Limit: 25.09 25.09 m/s
C6: mole% Velocity: 7.15 8.05 m/s
C7: mole% Metering Spool: DefectTolerance
C8+: mole% CValue: ~ AssessmentCode: ~
H2S: mole% MixtureDensity: 94.53 94.53 kg/m3 LengthCorrosionMultiplier: ~
Total: SG: 1.50 5.90 5.90 lb/ft3 #1/ #2PredictedBOLFailureAge: 21 ~ years
PipeSizing / MaterialSelection Velocity Limit: 18.82 18.82 m/s AxialFitnessforPurposeTimelineChart
MAOP/ DesignPressure: MPag Velocity: 7.10 7.99 m/s
ChokeSize: mm FlowlineInlet:
ChokeMaterial: ~ CValue: ~
1SpoolDiameter: mm MixtureDensity: 94.53 94.53 kg/m3
1SpoolWallThickness: mm 5.90 5.90 lb/ft3
1Spoolmaterial: ~ Velocity Limit: 18.82 18.82 m/s
Metering SpoolDiameter: mm Velocity: 2.72 3.06 m/s
Metering SpoolWallThickness: mm FlowlineOutlet:
Metering SpoolMaterial: ~ OutletTemperature: 27.79 28.94 C
FlowlineDiameter: mm OutletPressure: 5.44 5.33 MPag
FlowlineWallThickness: mm CValue: ~
FlowlineMaterial: ~ MixtureDensity: 108.59 105.66 kg/m3
OtherData 6.78 6.60 lb/ft3
DesignCode: ~ Velocity Limit: 17.56 17.80 m/s
Safety / DesignFactor: ~ Velocity: 2.37 2.74 m/s
LocationClassification: ~ Notes:
FlowlineLength: m
ExternalCoating Details: ~
Above/ BelowGround: ~
FlowlineFeedCheckCorrosivityChart Notes
Temperature (C)vs. Di stance al ongl i ne (m)
Pressure (MPa)vs. Di stance al ongl i ne (m)
Ini ti al BOL Corrosi onRate (mm/yr)vs. Di stance al ongl i ne (m)
Corrosi vi ty
Wareena #1 Initial
Wareena #1 Average
'Pi pe Si zi ng/Materi al Sel ecti on'entri esare the desi gner'sproposed
opti onsforthe l ease pi pi ngandfl owl i ne. The checkscarri edout on
these val uesare vel oci tychecksi .e. ensuri ngvel oci tyl i mi tsare not
exceeded.
'MAOPContai nment Wal l Thi cknessChecks'are basedonpressure
contai nment onl y. The CA checki sbasedon10yearsat a'ful l y
mi ti gated'corrosi onrate of0.05mm/yr. Above groundpi peworkusesa
safety/desi gnfactorof0.6, bel owgrounduses0.72.
'Vel oci tyChecks'are al l basedonthe API14E approachforcal cul ati ng:
pressure drop,vel oci ty, vel oci tyl i mi t,andfl ui ddensi ty. Exponenti al
temperature dropi scal cul atedusi ngoveral l heat transfercoeffi ci ents
of0.025forabove groundand3.120forbel owground.
The mi ni mumchoke openi ngi susedtoi l l ustrate the threshol dbel ow
whi chthe vel oci tycheckwi l l fai l i .e. the openi ngbel owwhi ch
vel oci ti esexceedthe vel oci tyl i mi t byAPI14E at the PIPfl owrates.
Openi ngpercentagesare i n10%i ncrements.
Appearsthat minimumcorrosion allowancesarein place based on fully
mitigated corrosion rateof 0.05 mm/yr.
25
The FEEDcheckshave beeni mpl ementedbasedonthe requi rementsof
SantosDocument 151510G005'Desi gnGui de forGasWel l head
Connecti onDesi gn'.
The desi gnershoul dal soconsi derthe effectsofthi snewfl owl i ne on
downstreamfaci l i ti estoensure these faci l i ti eswi l l not be put at ri sk
throughexcessi ve fl ui dfl ow. Inaddi ti on,the l i qui dhandl i ngcapaci ty
ofdownstreamfaci l i ti esshoul dbe revi ewed.
'Input Data'i sobtai nedfromthe fl owl i ne wel l 'sProj ect Ini ti ati onPl an
(PIP). The accuracyofthi sdatahasagreat effect onthe resul tsofthe
l ease pi pi ngandfl owl i ne desi gn, soeveryendeavourshoul dbe made
toensure thi si srepresentati ve.
A106Gr B
0.09
0.02
0.00
80.00
5.60
8.56
11.40
114.30
8.74
SS
114.30
99%
No
Yes
Yes
Duplex
915 / BulkyBin
No
Wareena#1
100.00
Condensate
6.61
1.14
0.23
0
10
0.05
3.51
4.00
83.90
0.23
0.11
0.11
Attempt toget al l the checkcol umnstocontai ngreenti cks.
150
168.30
No
12.34
5.00
DualInjector
ModB31G
BottomofLine (BOL)Corrosion mitigation appearsadequate.
4.77
200
60
200
200
150
150
'Internal Corrosi onMi ti gati on'val uesare cal cul atedbasedonthe PIP
i nput data,corrosi vi tyofthe fl ui d,l engthofthe fl owl i ne etc. Ifthe
corrosi onchecksfai l ,the desi gnermayoverri de the i njector
arrangement toi mprove the avai l abi l i tyofi nhi bi tor.
Internal corrosi onrate cal cul ati onsare performedat the fl owl i ne
i nl et,whi chi sl i kel ytoexperi ence the worst condi ti onsi .e. pressure
andtemperature. Ratesare esti matedusi ngde WaardandMi l l i ams
'93approachasperAIMSPIPROC0002Appendi xA.
Remai ni ngl i fe checksare carri edout for: 1)usi ngcorrosi onal l owance
onl yi .e. toeval uate whethercorrosi onal l owance wi l l survi ve the
nomi nal 10yearl i fe, and2)usi ngaxi al corrosi ondefect tol erance i .e.
growi ngdefect andcompari ngwi thModi fi edB31GFFPcri teri a.
Appearsthat velocitylimitsare not exceeded so pipe sizingisappropriate.

Note:This charttakesnoaccountofthetemperatureofthegas, whichhasa significanteffectonthelikely corrosionrate.
Buried
No
X56
AS2885.1
0.72
25,000
R1Broad Rural
FBE
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Year 11
Year 12
Year 13
Year 14
Year 15
Year 16
Year 17
Year 18
Year 19
Year 20
Year 21
Year 22
Year 23
Year 24
Year 25
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
m
)
Length(mm)
WT
CA
ASMEB31G
ModB31G
DNVRPF101
LeakRupture
#1BOLTimeline
#2BOLTimeline
Raven1
Tindilpie6
Big Lake63
Psyche3 Bookabourdie4
Challum27
Della 23
Dullingari 53
Gidgealpa 38
Marabooka 10
Moomba 063
Okotoko01
Tirrawarra 71
BMP
Wareena#1Initial
Wareena#1Average
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
SampleWells
21KPaa ppCO2Threshold
207KPaa ppCO2Threshold
650Kpaa ppCO2Threshold
1,500KPaa ppCO2Threshold
Wareena #1Initial
Wareena #1Average
HighCorrosivity
ModerateCorrosivity
LowCorrosivity
SevereCorrosivity
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
Attempt#1 Attempt#2