Search
Filters

51318-10982-Analyzing Pig Returns from a Subsea Pipeline for MIC: Sampling and Testing Challenges

This manuscript provides case study data from subsea crude oil pipelines that addresses the questions of how to obtain the best quality samples from pig returns for microbiological testing, and what are the relative merits of different test methodologies.

Product Number: 51318-10982-SG
Author: John J. Kilbane II Ph.D.
Publication Date: 2018
$0.00
$20.00
$20.00

Monitoring pipelines for microbial corrosion can be challenging because obtaining samples is difficult.

This is particularly true of subsea pipelines where the only available samples are oil samples and pig returns. Oil samples do not provide reliable data regarding microbial concentrations in biofilms on internal pipe surfaces and the heterogeneous nature of pig returns further complicates the situation by making it difficult to obtain representative samples. Moreover, there is no consensus regarding the best testing method to be used. Microbial growth tests have the longest history of use in the industry, but have more recently been questioned for being too slow, and for not providing comprehensive microbiological data. Test methods other than microbial growth tests, such as ATP (adenosine triphosphate) quantification and genetic testing (quantitative polymerase chain reaction or qPCR), can be used to monitor microbial populations in oilfield samples. This manuscript provides case study data from subsea crude oil pipelines that addresses the questions of how to obtain the best quality samples from pig returns for microbiological testing, and what are the relative merits of different test methodologies.

Key words: MIC, microbiologically influenced corrosion, subsea, pipeline, internal corrosion, genetic, qPCR, ATP, microbial growth tests, biofilm

Monitoring pipelines for microbial corrosion can be challenging because obtaining samples is difficult.

This is particularly true of subsea pipelines where the only available samples are oil samples and pig returns. Oil samples do not provide reliable data regarding microbial concentrations in biofilms on internal pipe surfaces and the heterogeneous nature of pig returns further complicates the situation by making it difficult to obtain representative samples. Moreover, there is no consensus regarding the best testing method to be used. Microbial growth tests have the longest history of use in the industry, but have more recently been questioned for being too slow, and for not providing comprehensive microbiological data. Test methods other than microbial growth tests, such as ATP (adenosine triphosphate) quantification and genetic testing (quantitative polymerase chain reaction or qPCR), can be used to monitor microbial populations in oilfield samples. This manuscript provides case study data from subsea crude oil pipelines that addresses the questions of how to obtain the best quality samples from pig returns for microbiological testing, and what are the relative merits of different test methodologies.

Key words: MIC, microbiologically influenced corrosion, subsea, pipeline, internal corrosion, genetic, qPCR, ATP, microbial growth tests, biofilm

Also Purchased
Picture for CORROSION RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL OF SUBSEA PIPELINES NETWORK
Available for download