Direct Assessment (DA) Inline Inspection (ILI) and hydrostatic testing (HT) are primary inspection tools acknowledged globally as approved pipeline integrity inspection techniques. These techniques have their merits and demerits and each reflects a different unique aspect of the overall integrity of the pipeline. Therefore an integrated approach that would combine ILI and DA techniques would provide comprehensive pipeline integrity management program for pipeline operators. This paper will provide comprehensive correlation of inline and aboveground pipeline integrity data geared at ensuring overall pipeline integrity management program.ILI tools are designed to inspect the conditions of the pipeline wall with limited disruption to operations. These tools are used to identity and quantify the risk of corrosion dents and cracks. However ILI has a threshold for detection which is defined by a minimum defect size below which the tool is unable to reliably detect anomalies. This means that ILI is reactive requiring damage or wall loss to occur to certain extent before it can be detected and reported.DA is another pipeline integrity technique designed for prevention of external corrosion in non-piggable pipelines as well as piggable pipelines where it can be used as a supplement to ILI. This technique is covered in ANSI/NACE SP0502 which specifies a minimum of two indirect inspections to confirm the most susceptible locations on a pipeline for external corrosion to occur. The benefit of the External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) approach is that the indirect inspection techniques can be considered to be proactive in confirming the integrity of steel pipe by being able to detect coating faults and deficiencies in the cathodic protection system before corrosion wall loss or environmental cracking occurs. The drawback of the indirect inspections is the inability to determine where and how much wall loss may have already occurred on the pipeline.Since DA is proactive it does not determine where and how much wall loss may have occurred in the pipeline but does inform on the locations of potential corrosion. ILI is reactive so it detects wall loss that has already occurred. Thus a combination of DA and ILI would be a more effective means of assessing the integrity risk of the pipeline and lead to a more comprehensive integrity program. The benefit of the combined approach would increase confidence in allocation of pipeline integrity budgets; where ILI reports wall loss but DA shows good CP levels the operator can reduce unnecessary and costly excavations and can prioritize areas for coating repairs to improve CP performance and prevent future wall loss from corrosion. Recent advances showing combination of ILI and DA approach will be presented.

Key words: pipeline integrity management (PIM), direct assessment (DA), external corrosion direct assessment (ECDA), inline inspection (ILI), DC voltage gradient, AC voltage gradient, AC current attenuation, close interval survey (CIS), cathodic protection (CP), coating anomaly, data interpretation, severity classification, digs, Indirect Inspection Tools (IIT).