Save 20% on select titles with code HIDDEN24 - Shop The Sale Now
This paper discusses the implementation of an on-line remote ultrasonic (UT) system at a SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage) facility located within the Athabasca oil sands reserves in Northern Alberta.
We are unable to complete this action. Please try again at a later time.
If this error continues to occur, please contact AMPP Customer Support for assistance.
Error Message:
Please login to use Standards Credits*
* AMPP Members receive Standards Credits in order to redeem eligible Standards and Reports in the Store
You are not a Member.
AMPP Members enjoy many benefits, including Standards Credits which can be used to redeem eligible Standards and Reports in the Store.
You can visit the Membership Page to learn about the benefits of membership.
You have previously purchased this item.
Go to Downloadable Products in your AMPP Store profile to find this item.
You do not have sufficient Standards Credits to claim this item.
Click on 'ADD TO CART' to purchase this item.
Your Standards Credit(s)
1
Remaining Credits
0
Please review your transaction.
Click on 'REDEEM' to use your Standards Credits to claim this item.
You have successfully redeemed:
Go to Downloadable Products in your AMPP Store Profile to find and download this item.
Static pressure equipment mechanical integrity (MI) is most typically associated with OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) as regulated under the Department of Labor. Facilities regulated under the Department of Transportation (DOT) including applicable natural gas and liquefied natural gas are not subject to PSM regulations including the implementation of MI management programs. Nevertheless, MI methodologies such as those prescribed in API 510 and 570 offer a suitable framework for integrity management of DOT-regulated pipeline natural gas facilities such as compressor stations, metering and regulation station, LNG Facilities. These MI methodologies can be implemented to provide appropriate engineering solutions considering typical facilities characteristics including materials of construction, operating processes, and integrity threats and satisfy current DOT integrity management regulation.
Refinery operations, characterized by significant process complexities, have traditionally remained as a domain where accurate asset integrity and life prediction have been difficult to achieve. Such difficulty stems from the need to characterize and manage corrosion across different critical process units and parameters; quantifying corrosion has thus become a key factor in ensuring asset integrity, and absence of appropriate corrosion management strategies has often been the cause of some of the most destructive and expensive corrosion failures. Managing corrosion in refineries is a complex task, given the engineering intricacies associated with the processes and operations.
The use of Damage Mechanisms (DM’s) has been successfully developed and applied in the Oil Refiningindustry for over 20 years. A damage mechanism is a specific combination of mechanical, chemical,physical, or other processes that result in equipment degradation (piping or equipment) during operation(active or shut down). These have been defined for Oil Refining (API RP 5711). API RP 571 issupplemented with some similar and some specific individual damage mechanism, by technical reports, recommended practices, publications, and bulletins from API, as well as from the National Association ofCorrosion Engineers (NACE - now known as the Association for Materials Protection and Performanceor AMPP), and the Welding Research Council (WRC).