See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283292314

MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF CATHODIC PROTECTION PERFORMANCE

FOR OIL AND GAS PIPELINES: A NIGERIA SITUATION.

Article · January 2014

CITATIONS READS

3 1,654

4 authors:

Pius Chukwukelue Onyechi Nnaemeka Obuka

Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka Enugu State University of Science and Technology
45 PUBLICATIONS   75 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   57 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Agbo O. Cornelius Chinenye Adaobi Igwegbe

University of Nigeria Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka
12 PUBLICATIONS   37 CITATIONS    49 PUBLICATIONS   192 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development and improvement of Composite materials View project

Evaluation of coagulant activities on wastewaters using natural materials and electrodes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chinenye Adaobi Igwegbe on 28 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International journal of advanced scientific and technical research Issue 4 volume 1, January-February 2014
Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954

MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF CATHODIC

PROTECTION PERFORMANCE FOR OIL AND GAS
PIPELINES: A NIGERIA SITUATION

Onyechi, Pius C1., Obuka, Nnaemeka S.P2*., Agbo, Cornelius O3., and
Igwegbe, Chinenye A4.

1 Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka,

Nigeria.
2 Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, Enugu State University of Science and
Technology, Enugu, Nigeria.
3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria.
4 Department of Chemical Engineering, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria.

Abstract
Pipeline integrity is maintained by simultaneous application of protective coating and Cathodic
Protection (CP). This study was carried out to monitor and evaluate the extent of cathodic
protection performance on the Trans-Niger Pipelines (TNP) onshore Nigeria. The scopes of
assessment for the evaluation were mainly; the „On‟ potential measurements, and „On/Off‟
potential measurements. These potential measurements were carried out in accordance with the
NACE SP-0169-2007 standard practice of reference electrode potential at -850mv criterion. The
readings recorded for the distance of 21km of the pipeline; starting from Rumuekpe manifold,
were used as the benchmark in evaluating the CP performance on the TNP. Some of the results
(20inch and 28inch pipelines) showed very high deviation from the potential criterion indicating
poor CP performance, while mostly those of the 36inch pipeline were satisfactory. Findings of
this study show that the CP performance on these pipelines is dependent on the physical state
(coating disbandment) of the pipes and their years under operation.

Keywords
Cathodic Protection, Trans-Niger Pipelines, Potential Measurement, Reference Electrode, Pipe
Coating

*Corresponding Author email: [email protected] (Obuka Nnaemeka S.P.)

INTRODUCTION
Pipelines play an extremely important role throughout the world as a means of transporting gases
and liquids over long distances from their sources to the ultimate consumers. The general public
is not aware of the number of pipelines that are continually in service as a primary means of
transportation. A buried operating pipeline is rather unobtrusive and rarely makes its presence
known except at valves, pumping or compressor stations or terminals.
Pipelines are exposed to aggressive soil, varying climatic conditions, microorganism and stray
currents that initiate corrosion processes. The research carried out in the last several decades

R S. Publication, [email protected] Page 47

International journal of advanced scientific and technical research Issue 4 volume 1, January-February 2014
Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954

indicated that Cathodic Protection (CP) is the most promising method for protecting pipelines
from corroding [1-3]. Corrosion is a physiochemical interaction between a metal and its
environment which results in changes in the properties of the metal and which may lead to
impairment of the function of the metal, the environment, or in the technical system of which
these form a part [4]. Corrosion properties of materials of engineering importance limit the
selection of materials for design of oil and gas systems and as such may impair management
results for efficiency of systems with increased production costs due to the efforts that are often
devoted in corrosion control [5]. It is a natural phenomenon whereby metals and alloys return to
their un-refined naturally occurring forms as ores and minerals [6].

Generally corrosion is favoured by; (i) Presence of an electrolyte, usually water but other liquids
as well as gases in some cases may serve as electrolyte. (ii) The presence of a corrosion cell
whereby two portions of the metal surfaces become electrically connected via an electrolyte, salt
bridge (voltaic cell) etc. (iii) The presence of dissolved substances (gases and ions) in the
electrolyte: gases such as oxygen, chlorine or bromines, and ions such as H+ (iv) The metal must
be inherently unstable in the metallic form, thereby tending to corrode [5]. Corrosion is
influenced by several factors, both in the metal itself and its environment: In the metal; (a) the
presence of mill scale (b) stress (c) heat treatment of the metal (d) laminations in the metal. In
the environment; (a) presence of acids, oxygen, carbondioxides and hydrogen sulphide (b) high
fluid flow velocity (c) bacterial activity.

Cathodic protection is an electrical method of preventing corrosion on metallic structures which

are in electrolytes such as soil or water. It has ha widespread application on underground
pipelines, and ever increasing use as most effective corrosion control method for numerous other
underground and underwater structures [7]. Cathodic protection can be defined as reduction or
elimination of corrosion by making the metal a cathode by means of an impressed current or
attachment to a sacrificial anode [8]. In this work, the performance of the cathodic protection
system applied on the Trans Niger Pipeline (TNP) network is monitored and evaluated.
However, cathodic protection uses an electrochemical method that uses cathodic polarization to
control the kinetics of the electrode processes occurring on the metal/electrolyte interface.

The principle of cathodic protection can be explained by the Wagner-Traud mixed potential
theory [9; 10]. For iron corroding in an aerated neutral electrolyte (water or soil) non acidic, the
following reactions take place:
𝐹𝑒 → 𝐹𝑒 2+ + 2𝑒 − (1)
𝑂2 + 2𝐻2 𝑂 + 4𝑒 − → 4𝑂𝐻 − (2)
According to mixed potential theory, any electrochemical or corrosion process can be divided
into two or more oxidation (1) and reduction (2), partial reactions with no net accumulation of
electric charge during the process. In Fig. 1, the mixed potential theory and kinetic equation were
used to explain the corrosion and possible protection of iron. Iron interfaced with electrolyte
starts to dissolve (anodic reaction) with the reduction of oxygen to form OH+ ions. As a result of
corrosion, an equilibrium state is established (rate of oxidation “cathodic” equals rate of
reduction “anodic”). The only point in the system (Fig. 1) where the total rates of oxidation and
reduction are equal is the intersection represented as a mixed or corrosion potential (Ecorr). The
current density corresponding to the corrosion potential is called corrosion current density (Icorr).
At Ecorr, the rate of iron dissolution is equal to the rate of oxygen reduction. If the slopes of both

R S. Publication, [email protected] Page 48

 International journal of advanced scientific and technical research Issue 4 volume 1, January-February 2014
Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954

polarization curves and the exchange current densities are known, it is possible to predict the
corrosion rate [11] of iron from electrochemical data. As illustrated in Fig. 1, by cathodically
polarizing the cathode in a negative direction from the corrosion potential, the corrosion rate
decreases. By polarizing the system from Ecorr to E‟corr with a known applied current (Iapp), the
corrosion current decreases from Icorr to I‟corr. For a complete inhibition of the corrosion
processes, it is necessary, as shown in Fig. 2, to polarize the metal to its reversible potential
EFE/Fe2+. The applied current at this point is known as a protective current, iprotective [12].

Fig. 1: Evans Diagram – Principle of Cathodic Protection

Fig. 2: Evans Diagram – Showing the protection current
for a corroding Fe system in acidic environment

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Going by the implication of pipeline failures and the role that external corrosion plays in these
failures; it is apparent that proper corrosion control can have a major impact on the safety,
environmental preservation and the economics of pipeline operation. Cathodic protection can
simply be described as a technique to prevent corrosion of buried or submerged structures [13].
A properly designed, installed, and operated cathodic protection system will mitigate corrosion
by passing direct current (DC) to the metal surface. Direct current is in turn discharged from the
electrodes installed in the electrolyte adjacent to or near the structure being protected. In this
manner, corrosion is arrested when the DC is of sufficient magnitude and is properly distributed
over the surface to be protected [14]. For cathodic protection to be effective, a properly planned
programme of monitoring, inspection and maintenance is essential.

Cathodic protection has an area of application that transcends the field of economic analysis.
This area involve buried or immersed piping systems transporting materials that are
environmentally hazardous or, if released, are dangerous to human, aquatic and terrestrial life.
CP is considered in conjunction with high-quality coatings in the design stages of projects
handling oil, water, natural gas, chemical or petrochemical feedstock in buried or immersed
systems [15]. Therefore, the performance of monitoring and evaluation of cathodic protection is
imperative because of the increased size, expense and operating depths of offshore and onshore
structures and pipelines.

R S. Publication, [email protected] Page 49

International journal of advanced scientific and technical research Issue 4 volume 1, January-February 2014
Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954

2.1 TYPES OF CORROSION CELLS ON PIPELINES

2.1.1 Differential Cell Corrosion
The situation where the metal oxidation occurs predominantly at one site while the reduction
reaction occurs predominantly at another site is referred to as a differential corrosion cell.
Underground corrosion of pipelines and other structures is often the result of differential
corrosion cells of which a variety of different types exist [16].

(1) Differential Aeration Cell: This is probably the most common cell found on pipelines or
other underground structures. One area of the pipeline is exposed to higher concentrations of
oxygen and becomes the cathode in the cell, while another part of the structure is oxygen
deficient and becomes the anode. Electrical current leaves the metal surface at the anode,
increasing the corrosion rate, and flows to the oxygenated cathodic area, decreasing the corrosion
rate. Differential aeration cells as well as other corrosion cells can be autocatalytic in that the
chemical and electrochemical reactions, as well as ion migration, tend to produce conditions that
promote the continuation of the cells.

(2) Difference in Soil Properties: Variation in moisture content of the soil, the depth from the
surface or oxygen barriers such as paved road can produce differential aeration cells (Fig. 3). The
corrosion potential of the pipeline in the clay soil is more negative than the corrosion potential in
the sandy soil, resulting in an increase in the corrosion rate of the pipe in the clay and a decrease
in the sand. Factors other than differences in the oxygen concentration of the soil can produce a
differential corrosion cell. For instance, differences in the pH, or the concentration of aggressive
ions such as chlorides in the soil can produce differential corrosion cell.

Fig. 3: Corrosion from dissimilar Fig. 4: Corrosion new steel in contact with old
soils steel
(3) Galvanic Corrosion: This is another example of a differential corrosion cell. In galvanic
corrosion the potential difference is created by the presence of different metals, Table 1 [5],
shows the galvanic series of metals in soil and sea water. When these metals are electrically
coupled, the metal with the most positive corrosion potential is cathodically polarized, reducing
in corrosion rate, while the more negative member of the couple is anodically polarized,
increasing its corrosion rate.

R S. Publication, [email protected] Page 50

International journal of advanced scientific and technical research Issue 4 volume 1, January-February 2014
Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954

TABLE 1: Galvanic Series in Soil/Sea Water at 770F (250C) [5]

(4) Surface Films: the presence of surface films on a metal can alter the corrosion potential and
cause differential cell corrosion. For example, Mill scale is created on line pipe steel during the
manufacturing process (hot rolling) and if not removed, the mill-scale-coated steel will act like a
dissimilar metal in contact with non-mill scale coated pipe steel. The potential of the bare pipe
steel surface will be more negative (active) than the mill-scale-coated surface resulting in severe
corrosion of the bare steel surface in low resistivity soil.
A similar condition can occur when new steel pipe is intermixed with old steel pipe (Fig. 4). The
potential of bright new steel is typically more negative than that of old rusted steel, resulting in
rapid corrosion of the new steel unless the new section is electrically insulated from the old
section and/or cathodically protected. A similar corrosive condition can occur if, during work on
an existing piping system, tools cut or scrape the pipe exposing areas of bright steel.

(5) Relative Size of Anodic and Cathodic Areas: The severity of corrosion of anodic areas
increases as the ratio of the anodic to cathodic areas decreases [17]. When the anode is small and
the cathode is large, the anode will be subjected to a high density of current discharge per unit
area, with the total amount of current flowing governed by the kinetics of the oxidation and
reduction reactions and the soil resistivity.

2.1.2 Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion (MIC)

It has been estimated that 20 to 30% of external corrosion on underground pipelines is MIC
related [18]. The by-products from the micro-organisms promote several forms of corrosion,
including pitting, crevice, and under-deposit corrosion. A variety of bacteria have been
implicated in exacerbating corrosion of underground pipelines, and these broadly classified into

R S. Publication, [email protected] Page 51

International journal of advanced scientific and technical research Issue 4 volume 1, January-February 2014
Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954

Aerobic and Anaerobic bacteria [19]. Obligate aerobic bacteria can only survive in the presence
of oxygen (e.g. metal-oxidizing bacteria), while obligate anaerobic bacteria can only survive in
oxygen absence (e.g. sulphate-reducing bacteria and metal-reducing bacteria). A third
classification is facultative aerobic bacteria that prefer aerobic conditions, but can live under
anaerobic condition (e.g. acid-producing bacteria). Most aggressive attack takes place in the
presence of microbial communities that contain a variety of types of bacteria. In the case of
underground pipelines, the most aggressive attack has been associated with acid-producing
bacteria in such bacteria communities.

2.1.3 Stray Current Corrosion

Corrosion of underground pipelines can be accelerated by stray dc flowing in the soil near the
pipeline. Electrified railroads, mining operations and other similar industries that utilize large
amounts of dc sometimes allow a significant portion of the current to use a ground path return to
their power source. These currents often utilize pipelines in close proximity as a part of the
return path. This „stray‟ current can be picked up by the pipeline and discharged back into the
soil at some distance down the pipeline close to the current return. Current pickup on the pipe is
the same process as cathodic protection, which mitigates corrosion. The process of discharge of a
dc off the pipe and through the soil accelerates corrosion of pipe walls at the discharge point,
causing stray current corrosion.

Field experience and laboratory research results show that stray alternating current (ac) also can
cause accelerated corrosion of underground pipelines [20; 21]. The most common source of stray
ac are the induced ac from power lines and pipelines in a common right of way and ground faults
from ac power transmission. It is generally agreed that ac-enhanced corrosion rates are only a
small fraction (<1%) of those of dc-currents.

2.1.4 Stress Corrosion Cracking

Stress-corrosion cracking (SCC) is defined as a cracking of a material produced by the combined
action of corrosion and tensile stress. There are two forms external SCC on underground
pipelines; high-pH SCC (also referred to as classical SCC) and near-neutral-pH SCC (also
referred to as low-pH SCC). A characteristic of both forms of SCC is the development of
colonies of longitudinal surface cracks in the body of the pipe that link up to form long shallow
flaws. The high-pH form of SCC is intergranular [22], the cracks propagate between the grains in
the metal. The near-neutral form of SCC is transgranular – the cracks propagate through the
grains in the crack faces and in some cases with corrosion of the external surface of the pipe as
well.

2.2 CATHODIC PROTECTION (CP)

External corrosion and SCC are electrochemical phenomena and therefore can be prevented or
mitigated by altering the electrochemical condition of the corroding interface. This is basically
by applying a negative potential and making the pipe a cathode, the rate of corrosion (oxidation)
is reduced, hence, corrosion is prevented or mitigated and the reduction process is accelerated.
This means that in mitigating corrosion, cathodic protection alters the environment of the pipe
surface, which further enhances corrosion control. The pH of any electrolyte at the pipe surface
is increased, the oxygen concentration is reduced, and deleterious anions such as chloride,
migrated away from the pipe surface [16].

R S. Publication, [email protected] Page 52

International journal of advanced scientific and technical research Issue 4 volume 1, January-February 2014
Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954

Based on the type of polarization used in protecting a structure, CP systems are divided into
Sacrificial anode and Impressed current systems. Sacrificial anode CP utilizes an anode material
that is electronegative to the pipe steel, when connected to the pipe, the pipe becomes the
cathode in the circuit and corrosion is mitigated (FIG. 5). Typical sacrificial anode materials for
underground pipelines are zinc and magnesium. The anode is packaged in a backfill consisting of
75% gypsum, 20% betonite and 5% sodium sulphate. The purpose of the backfill is to absorb
corrosion products and water from the soil to keep the anodes active [6]. Sacrificial anodes do
not require an outside power source; rather they provide their own power and need minimal
maintenance. Requirements for a good sacrificial anode are: (i) The potential between the anode
and the corroding structure must be large to overcome the formation of anode cathode cells on
the corroding structure. (ii) When drawing current, the anode should not be polarized to a large
extent. (iii) The anode must have high anode efficiency (i.e., the current produced by metal
dissolution must be readily available for cathodic protection). However, economic considerations
have led to the use of aluminum and its alloys [23].

Impressed current CP (Fig. 6) utilizes an outside power supply (rectifier) to control the voltage
between the pipe and an anode (cast iron, graphite, platinum clad, mixed metal oxide, etc.) in
such a manner that the pipe becomes the cathode in the circuit and corrosion mitigated.
Impressed current system can be used to protect to protect bare and poorly coated pipelines
because of high current capacity. All impressed current CP require routine maintenance and
monitoring because they involve a power supply and more electrical connection than sacrificial
anode systems.

Fig. 5: Protection of underground pipelines Fig. 6: Impressed current CP system with above ground
with a Magnesium anode (Sacrificial anode) rectifier and a single remote anode ground bed

2.3 CATHODIC PROTECTION CRITERIA

2.3.1 Potential Criteria
In 1933, Kuhn, R.J. [24] postulated that the potential needed to stop corrosion is probably in the
neighbourhood of -0.85V versus Cu/CuSO4. Over the years, after extensive study on cathodic
protection, the criteria for cathodic protection has been documented by National Association of
Corrosion Engineers (NACE). NACE RP-0169-96 specifies; “A negative (cathodic) potential of
at least 850mV versus Cu/CuSO4 should be applied to protect any corroding structure” [25; 26].
However, in the presence of sulfides, bacteria, elevated temperatures, acid environment and
dissimilar metals, the criteria of -850mV may not be sufficient [27]. According to NACE, one

R S. Publication, [email protected] Page 53

International journal of advanced scientific and technical research Issue 4 volume 1, January-February 2014
Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954

should also take into account the IR drop at the metal/soil interface, which is included in most
practical measurements; it is of uncertain value, depending on the electrolyte (soil) resistance.
For other metals such as aluminum and copper piping, NCAE RP-0169-96 suggests a minimum
of 100mV cathodic polarization between the structure surface and a stable reference electrolyte
contacting the electrolyte.

2.3.2 IR Drop Criteria

All CP potential measurements contain an IR drop component when a CP current or interference
current is present. The IR drop is caused by current flow through the soil, the pipe coating, and
the metallic path [9; 28]. The measured potential (Em) is;
𝐸𝑚 = 𝐸𝑝 + 𝐼𝑅𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑝 (3)
Where Ep, is the polarized potential. On a new pipeline that has a high performance coating, a
large IR drop is produced due to extremely high dielectric resistance of the coating. Measuring
the IR drop is crucial in evaluating the correct polarized potential. Gummow, [29] summarizes
several methods that have been developed to measure the IR drop, namely; (i) Extrapolation of
potential measurements taken with the reference electrode placed at increasing distances from
the pipe. (ii) Extrapolation using a stepwise current reduction technique. (iii) Interruption of the
current with the measurement of an “instant off” potential.

Current interruption is considered to be the best IR drop correction technique. However, current
interruption technique is very difficult to conduct for large structures like pipelines, and that is
why the use of IR coupons technique to estimate the IR drop has been implemented worldwide.

3 METHODOLOGY AND MATERIALS OF RESEARCH

This study was carried out at Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) of Nigeria,
Eastern Division. The work was centered on the evaluation of the cathodic protection of
pipelines with emphasis on the Trans-Niger Pipelines (TNP) also known as „Trunklines‟, which
conveys crude oil. The Eastern Division of SPDC covers some of the states in the South-Eastern
part of Nigeria namely; Imo, Rivers, Bayelsa, and Akwa Ibom state, with very high
concentration in the Rivers and Bayelsa states. Due to the fact that other oil companies operate in
the area, there are presences of Chevron, Agip (NAOC), and Elf pipelines which cross one
another, and some cases are tie-in into the same manifold. There are also presence of Nigeria
National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and the Nigeria Ports Plc.

The study involved, visits to and monitoring of CP operations at Rumuekpe manifold, where the
SPDC, Elf and Agip pipelines cross each other. This manifold receives crude oil from Assa-
Egbema, as well as Adibawa oil wells. The TNP lines from this manifold are 36inch, 20inch,
28inch, and 14inch pipelines. Another location visited was the Ibaa manifold, which uses solar
power as its source of electricity for the CP. Also visited was the Agbada manifold. There are the
Agbada I and Agbada II locations which have flow stations. The TNP lines pass through these
areas and extended up to the Bomu manifold, through the Ogoni area, and then to the Bonny
Terminal. The monitoring and subsequent evaluation of the CP performance on these pipelines
was undertaken through these processes: (a) the Pipe-to-soil potential measurement (CIPS) (b)
the on/off pipe-to-soil potential measurement (c) Electrical Interference evaluation (d) Sacrificial
Anode installation

R S. Publication, [email protected] Page 54

International journal of advanced scientific and technical research Issue 4 volume 1, January-February 2014
Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954

3.1 Pipe-To-Soil Potential/ CIPS Measurement

On the basis of analysis of exploitation data, it was found that potential measurements of
cathodically protected pipelines performed only in places of fitting of permanent reference
electrode in chosen measurement-control points are frequently insufficient for the correct
evaluation of CP effectiveness [30]. The standard reference electrode used for land based (non
saline environment) pipe to soil or structure to soil potentials is the Copper/Copper Sulfate
electrode (Fig, 7a and b). This pipe to soil potential measurement is actually the\Close Interval
Potential Survey (CIPS) technique in determining the effectiveness of a CP system.

Fig. 7b: A Picture of the reference electrode

Fig. 7a: A Standard reference electrode (Cu/CuSO4) (Cu/CuSO4)

Fig. 8: Testing reference electrodes prior to field use

To achieve accurate readings, it is important that the potential of the reference electrode exhibit a
stable half cell potential within reasonable limits. Prior to taking a pipe to soil potential, it is
important to check or calibrate the reference electrode(s) being used [2012]. The test is to place
the porous plugs of a standard (unused) electrode and the electrodes for the CIPS end to end and
measure the millivolt difference (Fig. 8). Generally, if the difference to the standard is less than
5millivolts, no maintenance of the electrodes will be required.

The NACE-SP-0169-2007 [32] provides the protection criteria to which the measured pipe-to-
soil potential measurements should be compared in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the
existing cathodic protection system operation. Fig. 9 shows the typical arrangement at a test
station when a pipe to soil potential is being measured, while Fig. 10, shows the measurement
that may be taken as the electrodes are moved. The reference electrode is placed on the ground
surface over the pipeline, so that the porous plug is in good contact with the ground. The
reference electrode is connected by a test lead to the negative terminal of a Voltmeter. The
voltmeter must be of high input impedance to ensure accuracy and the positive terminal of the

R S. Publication, [email protected] Page 55

 International journal of advanced scientific and technical research Issue 4 volume 1, January-February 2014
Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954

voltmeter is connected to the pipeline through the test station cable. The reference electrode
spacing is usually between 3 to 6feet (1m to 2m), and by taken pipe to soil potential
measurements over a fixed distance, a graph plot of potential vs distance can be produced.

Fig. 9: Typical arrangement at a test station for a pipe Fig. 10: Pipe to soil potential measurement as the
to soil potential measurement reference electrodes are moved along the pipeline

3.2 On and Off Pipe To Soil Potentials

Pipe to soil potential recorded with the CP system operations are called “ON” pipe to soil
potentials. These “on” pipe to soil potentials include the effects of d.c. voltage gradients (or IR
drops) caused by the flow of cathodic protection current in the ground, across the pipe coating
and along the pipeline. For effective comparison to the NACE SP-0169-2007, these voltage
gradients have to be temporarily removed while the pipe to soil potential is being recorded. This
is the “Off” or “polarized” pipe to soil potential and does not include the inaccuracies caused by
the voltage gradient (IR) effects in the “on” potential.

If true “off” potentials are to be recorded, it is imperative to interrupt all the line rectifiers that
affect the line section being surveyed. If some rectifiers are not interrupted then the recorded
“off” potentials will not be true reading. When interrupting cathodic protection rectifiers (Fig.
11), all interruption must occur at the same time in order that the “off” potentials are measured.
Therefore the current interrupters that are installed for a CIPS must stay synchronized and all
must switch “on” and “off” at the same time.

Fig. 11: Currents being forced through ground electrodes, through the earth (or water)
to the pipelines to enable interruption during „Off‟ potential measurements.

R S. Publication, [email protected] Page 56

International journal of advanced scientific and technical research Issue 4 volume 1, January-February 2014
Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954

3.3 Electrical Interferences

During field survey, there was an incidence of electrical interference at the Rumuekpe manifold
on the pipeline belonging to SPDC, and two other companies, ELF and NAOC. At a previously
held meeting of three companies, they agreed that the NAOC pipeline was suspected to have lost
its thickness due to corrosion and ageing, hence there was current drainage from the two other
lines. It was then resolved that the three pipelines should be electrically connected to a bond box,
whose job is to distribute steady cathodic currents, in order to maintain an equi-potential
amongst them. To achieve this, it was also agreed that the SPDC and ELF pipelines be directly
cad-welded with a cable to the bond-box, while the NAOC line (because of its suspected
reduction in thickness and inherent susceptibility to sudden failure during cad-welding) will have
a steel clamp bolted around it, with a steel point directly making a contact with the pipe. The
other parts of the pipeline were to remain coated, and steel point was to be bolted to the clamp
and cad-welded with a cable to the bond-box.

4.0 CATHODIC PROTECTION SURVEYS’ RESULTS

The total distance traversed by these pipelines is over 200km but for the purpose of this study,
few kilometers of the pipeline will be monitored and evaluated, hence they will serve as
reference elements to understand what goes on at the remaining sections of the (TNP) pipelines
up to Bonny terminal.

4.1 Pipe to Soil Potential/CIPS

The reference electrode used in this survey is the Cu/CuSO4 electrode. The measurement was
carried out on the TNPs, which involves moving from one test-post point to another along the
pipeline network. The test-post points are areas where the cables which are connected to the
pipeline underneath the earth surface are installed to enable easier measurement using the
voltmeter probe. They were basically installed at intervals of 0.5km along the length of the
pipeline. With this method, it is very easy to measure the potentials of pipelines without recourse
to excavation, which is a very expensive venture.

The following sequence of operations was carried out: (i) Safety precautions/measures were
observed (ii) Each installed test-post for the pipeline was located. (iii) Tune the voltmeter to the
required setting. (iv) Connect the reference electrode to the voltmeter. (v) Using the porous-plug
end of the reference electrode, push it to the ground near the pipeline to be measured (for better
results, the porous-plug end should touch the wet portion of the soil). (vi) Remove the capping
on the test-post. (vii) Insert the voltmeter probe to the cable head, then to the pipeline. (viii)
Record the voltmeter reading for each test-post. The results of CIPS on 36inch TNP for 2011 is
recorded on Table 2 and its graph shown in Fig. 12.

R S. Publication, [email protected] Page 57

International journal of advanced scientific and technical research Issue 4 volume 1, January-February 2014
Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954

Table 2: Results of the Pipe to Soil Potential Measurement on 36inch TNP for 2011
Test Post No. Distance (km) Potentials (-mv)

Rumuekpe M/F 453

1 0.5 1975
2 1.0 1268
3 1.5 1117
4 2.5 1097
5 3.5 1047
6 4.5 1025
7 5.53 1015
8 6.3 -
9 7.5 1010
10 8.75 1007
11 9.0 985
12 10.0 970
13 10.5 989
14 11.5 1014
15 12.5 975
16 13.2 819
17 13.75 1014
18 14.0 1107
19 14.75 1135
20 15.5 1167
Ibaa M/F 572
605
21 16.5 901
22 17.5 870
23 18.5 833
24 19.5 866
25 20.0 1014
26 20.5 940

Fig. 12: Graph of the pipe to soil potential measurements on the 36inch TNP 2011

R S. Publication, [email protected] Page 58

International journal of advanced scientific and technical research Issue 4 volume 1, January-February 2014
Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954

4.2 On/Off Pipe to Soil Potential

The aim of this measurement is to determine the polarized potentials of the pipeline when
switched on and off. For this report, the measurements started from the Rumuekpe manifold and
ended at Agbada. At this point, it was desired to electrically loop the stations at Agbada, Apara
and Obigbo, as each is on the same pipeline. This was with a view of obtaining the readings for
the same cycle of time. Three current interrupters, one for each location were used. Each was
connected to the Transformer-Rectifier (TF). Each interrupter was set at a cycle of 15seconds, to
operate 12seconds “On” and 3seconds “Off”. The on-potential is the maximum obtainable
polarized potential, while the off-potential is the operating polarized potential.
The following sequence of operations was carried out: (i) Ensure all necessary safety precautions
are taken. (ii) Switch off the TR. (iii) Disconnect the drain cables from the TR. (iv) Connect the
two mains of the interrupter to each of the drain cables. (v) Connect the interrupter to the TR.
(vi) With the aid of a stop watch, switch the interrupter “on” when the time dial is at the chosen
0, 15, 30 or 45seconds. (vii) Record the reading for both “On” and “Off” positions. This
measurement was taken for al sizes of the pipe but the results for 20inch and 28inch pipes
(Tables 3 and 4 respectively) were reported in this article (2009 and 2011 readings). Fig. 13 and
Fig. 14 show graphical representations of the respective pipe sizes.
Table 3: Results of the On/Off Pipe to Soil Potential Measurement on the Old 20inch TNP for
2009 and 2011
Test Post Distance (km) 2009 (-mv) 2011 (-mv)
No. On Off On Off
Rumuekpe 437 335 412 320
1 M/F 195 194 172 172
2 0.5 270 269 246 219
3 1.5 274 273 263 241
4 2.5 329 328 237 226
5 3.5 178 177 195 182
6 4.5 159 158 249 231
7 5.5 229 228 226 226
8 5.93 110 109 217 203
9 6.5 111 110 179 164
10 7.35 117 116 186 160
11 7.5 150 - 265 239
12 8.5 209 208 146 146
13 9.5 175 174 237 215
14 10.5 249 248 260 249
15 11.5 411 410 173 152
16 11.94 112 111 195 186
17 12.5 253 252 240 240
18 13.2 206 205 280 280
19 14.0 351 350 291 291
20 14.5 302 291 231 231
21 14.75 372 371 199 199
22 15.5 332 331 492 368
23 16.5 383 382 549 482
17.5

R S. Publication, [email protected] Page 59

International journal of advanced scientific and technical research Issue 4 volume 1, January-February 2014
Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954

Table 4: Results of the On/Off Pipe to Soil Potential Measurements on the 28inch TNP for 2009
and 2003

Test Post Distance (km) 2009 (-mv) 2011 (-mv)

No. On Off On Off
Rumuekpe M/F 439 342 551 430
1 0.5 176 126 840 809
2 1.5 136 136 392 381
3 2.5 222 221 361 265
4 3.5 193 192 309 249
5 4.5 217 216 292 273
6 5.5 147 146 310 256
7 5.93 166 165 436 310
8 6.5 066 - 292 208
9 7.35 142 141 357 275
10 7.5 065 064 306 209
11 8.5 065 - 332 243
12 9.5 209 208 228 201
13 10.5 159 158 366 224
14 11.5 249 248 556 460
15 11.94 444 443 465 359
16 12.4 444 443 465 359
17 13.2 - - 372 321
18 13.75 - - 223 208
19 14.0 277 276 246 217
20 14.75 306 205 253 221
21 Ibaa M/F 322 221 460 364
22 16.5 331 230 236 215
23 17.5 - - 246 -
24 18.5 - - 364 -
25 19.5 330 229 392 320
26 20..2 331 230 286 230
27 20.5 328 227 - -
28 21.5 316 225 - -
29 22.0 221 220 340 292
30 22.5 356 311 326 269
31 23.5 371 270 397 265
32 23.9 368 257 294 372

R S. Publication, [email protected] Page 60

International journal of advanced scientific and technical research Issue 4 volume 1, January-February 2014
Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954

ON 09
OFF 09
ON 11
OFF 11

Fig. 13: Graph of on.off pipe to soil potential measurements on the old 20inch TNP for 2009 and
2011

ON 09
OFF 09
ON 11
OFF 11

Fig. 14: Graph of the on/off pipe to soil potential measurements on the 28inch TNP for 2009 and
2011

4.3 Interferences and Cad-Welding

During this CP monitoring exercise, the area affected by interference was excavated, and the
pipelines belonging to SPDC and NAOC were located and cad-welded while that of ELF was not
located throughout the exercise even after pipe locators were used.

The following sequence of operations was followed during the cad-welding process; (i) A
Corrosion Engineer was present. (ii) A first aid box and fire extinguisher were kept ready. (iii)
The pipeline was revealed through excavation. (iv) Remove a small area of the coating; say
5cm2, with chisel and hammer, to expose the bare metal of the pipeline. (v) Use emery paper of
very fine grit to polish, in order to remove scales of the coating. (vi) Measure the pipeline

R S. Publication, [email protected] Page 61

International journal of advanced scientific and technical research Issue 4 volume 1, January-February 2014
Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954

thickness using an Ultrasonic thickness measurement (UTM) meter, to ascertain whether the
thickness is good enough to withstand cad-welding (must not be less than 60% of original wall
thickness). (vii) Take a gas test of the environment, using an explosimeter to ensure that there is
no gas leakage prior to cad-welding which could cause explosion. (viii) Put cad-welding powder
according to specification in the mould, and ignite with the cad-welding gun to weld the cable
onto the pipeline. (ix) Cover the exposed welded area with splash zone mixed in appropriate ratio
to give it a coated finish. (x) Connect the cable to the bond-box. (xi) Measure the pipe to soil
potential after connection to ensure that the potential is within standard. (xii) Backfill the
excavated area.

4.4 Installation of Sacrificial Magnesium Anode

As a result of general low potential readings obtained from measurements of pipelines inside the
Nkpoku manifold, it was suspected that there are current drainages of some kind due to the large
network of pipelines inside the manifold (since potentials outside the manifold are good). A
decision was taken to bring up the potentials of the Trans-Niger Pipelines (TNPs) by the
installation of sacrificial magnesium anode(s) to each pipeline.

Sequence of operations is; (i) Observe all safety measures. (ii) Excavate areas around the
pipeline. (iii) Further excavation of the area for the anodes at directions perpendicular to the
pipeline and at distances not less than 1.0m from the end of the anode to the pipeline. (iv) Cad-
welding of cables for the bond-box. (v) Backfill of the excavated areas. However, the number of
cables depends on the number of anodes installed to a particular pipeline. The 14inch pipeline
had only one anode installed while the 36inch pipeline had two anodes installed unto it.

5. DISCUSSION
The data of Table 2 and the graph of Fig. 12 show the potential values of the 36inch Trans-Niger
Pipeline (TNP). The pipeline is considerably a new pipeline having been commissioned in 2002;
the obtained results indicate a protected pipeline. During the cad-welding operations on this
pipeline at Rumuekpe and Nkpoku manifolds it was observed the coatings are still intact. Fig. 12
confirms this as almost all the lines of the graph are above the -850mv potential level. This
indicates adequate cathodic protection for the 36inch pipeline. There are power generating
stations at the starting point which is the Rumuekpe manifold and at kilometer 16 which is the
Ibaa manifold. There are other power generating stations along the line, so that as the voltage
required for effective cathodic protection drops at very far distances referred to as „remote‟
locations, there is another station that generates power enough to ensure adequate cathodic
protection by keeping the voltage requirement above the 850mv potential level.

Consequently, the voltage from the Rumuekpe manifold distributed through the bond-box to the
lines is very good, but at Ibaa manifold, there is voltage drop which is explained by the fact that
the potential readings obtained from the manifold are generally low. This was also why
sacrificial magnesium anodes were installed at Nkpoku.

For the purpose of comparison, the results of the readings obtained in 2009 for on/off potential
measurement were reviewed for the old 20inch and 28inch TNP. It is worthy to note that all the
TNP lines traverse the same distance and location, they also do the same job, therefore, they
received equal amount of electrical current from the bond-boxes. The first prominent observation

R S. Publication, [email protected] Page 62

International journal of advanced scientific and technical research Issue 4 volume 1, January-February 2014
Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954

from Tables 3 and 4, and Figs. 13 1nd 14, is the fact that the reading s are very low. Since the
same electric potential which was good for the 36inch TNP is the same that was found not to be
good for the old 20inch TNP in same 2011, the problem is definitely not with the potential.
Hence, while the readings of the 36inch TNP indicated a direct proportionality to the generated
current, that of the old 20inch indicates an inverse proportionality, which shows that there is a
resistance to current flow and/or current drainage along the line. It was found that the terrain
under which the TNP lines pass through has very high resistivity soil. However, despite this, the
36inch TNP still showed acceptable protection; hence resistivity of the soil is not an acceptable
factor.

Actually, the old 20inch and the 28inch lines were laid more than thirty-five years ago, with this
backdrop, it is an open secret in SPDC corrosion department that the coatings of these pipelines
have problems. The coatings are so disbanded that there is so much drainage of current at the
disbanded points. It was also observed from Fig. 13 that despite the very low potential values,
there are relatively so many peaks, that is, „holidays‟ along the lines which indicate so many
drainage points. Obviously, the relatively short distance of 21km used for the study, the same
very low potential readings were obtained throughout the length of the old 20inch and 28inch
pipelines.

6. CONCLUSION
The result obtained from Fig. 12 played a very important role in drawing the conclusion on this
study. Therefore, this work showed that the performance of cathodic protection for oil and gas
pipelines and/or underground structures is directly related to the physical state of the pipelines,
especially the length of time they have been in operation. The newer the pipeline, as in the case
of the 36inch pipeline, the better the performance. In addition, the more corrosive the
environment, the less the performance, also the wear and tear phenomenon due to usage reduces
the performance.

Finally, the question any honest person can ask is: “ Now that SPDC knows that some coatings
are bad, is it not possible to recoat and/or replace the lines in order to avoid further corrosion on
the pipelines and invariably save the host areas from environmental hazard and subsequent lost
of lives and properties?”

REFERENCES
1. Juchniewicz, R., Jankowski, J., and Darowicki, K. (2000). Cathodic and Anodic Protection in
Corrosion and Environment Degradation. M. Schutzee, Ed., Vol. 1, Pp 383-470. Weinheim:
Wiley-VCH.

2. Improving the Safety of Marine Pipelines. Washington DC: Committee on the Safety of
Marine Pipelines, Marine Board, National Research Council, 1994.

3. Mandke, J.S. (1990). Oil and Gas Journal, October 29, Volume 40.

4. Mattisson, E. (1988). Basic Corrosion Technology for Scientist and Engineers, Ellis
Horwood, Chichester.

R S. Publication, [email protected] Page 63

International journal of advanced scientific and technical research Issue 4 volume 1, January-February 2014
Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954

5. Ihueze, C.C., and Obuka, S.P.N. (2011). A Review of Corrosion and Corrosion Schemes for
Metal and Composites Oil and Gas Systems: Management and Development.Society for the
Advancement of Material and Process Engineering, Journal of Advanced Materials, Vol. 43,
No. 2, Pp 35-54.

6. Uhlig, H.H., and Revie, R.N. (1985). Corrosion and Corrosion Control, 3rd ed. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., New York.

7. Bushman, J.B. (2012). Corrosion and Cathodic Protection Theory. Bushman and Associates,
Inc., Medina, Ohio.

8. Bard, A.J., and Faulkner, L.R. (2001). Electrochemical Methods-Fundamentals and

Appilcations, 2nd ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

9. Jones, D.A. (1996). Principles of Corrosion, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey.

10. Wagner, C., and Traud, W. (1938). Z.Electrochem, 44, 391.

11. Obuka, S.P.N., Okoli, C.N., Ikwu, G.O.R., and Chukwumuanya, E.O. (2012). Review of
Corrosion Kinetics and Thermodynamics of CO2 and H2S Corrosion Effects and Associated
Prediction/Evaluation on Oil and Gas Pipeline System. International Journal of Scientific and
Technology Research, Vol. 1, Issue4, Pp 156-162.

12. Popov, B.N., and Kumaraguru, S.P. (2012). Cathodic Protection of Pipelines. Industrial
Applications, Chapter 24, Pp 503-521.

13. De Force, B and Pickering H. (1995). A Clearer View of How Crevice Corrosion Occurs.
The Mineral, Metals and Materials Society. Journal of Metals, Vol. 12, pp 22.

14. Wolfson, S.L. (1994). Operation Performance of Aluminum Anodes-Results from

Laboratory and Field Tests. Materials Performance, September, 1994.

15. Webster, H.A. (1992). Economics of Cathodic Protection. Materials Performance, March,
1992.

16. Beavers, J.A., Thompson, N.G., and Coulson, K.E.W. (1993). Effects ofSurface Preparation
and Coatings on SCC Susceptibility of Line Pipe: Phase 2-Field Studies. Proceedings of 12th
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, p 226.

17. US, DOT (2000). Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Report.
www.ops.dot.gov/stats/stats.htm.
18. Koch, G.H., Brongers, M.P.H., Thompson, N.G., Virmani, Y.P., and Payer, J.H. (2002).
Corrosion Costs and Prevention Strategies in the United States, FHWA-RD-01-156. Office
of Infrastructure Research and Development, Federal Highway Administration.

R S. Publication, [email protected] Page 64

 International journal of advanced scientific and technical research Issue 4 volume 1, January-February 2014
Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954

19. Little, B.J., Wagner, P.A., and Mansfeld, F. (1997). Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion,
Corrosion Testing Made Easy. B.C. Syrett, Ed., NACE International.

20. Yunovich, M., and Thompson, N.G. (2004). AC Corrosion: Corrosion Rates and Mitigation
Requirements. Paper 04206, Corrosion 2004, NACE International.

21. Xu, L.Y., Su, X., and Cheng, Y.F. (2013). Effect of Alternating Current on Cathodic
Proetection on Pipelines. Elsevier, Corrosion Science, Vol. 66, Pp 263-268.

22. Wenk, R.L. (1974). Field Investigation of Stress Corrosion Cracking. Proceedings of 5th
Symposium on Line Pipe Research, Pipeline Research Council International.

23. Schreiber, C.F., Ashworth, V., and Booker, C.J.L. Eds. (1986). Cathodic Protection Theory
and Practice. Chichester, West Sussex, John Wiley Horwood, 1, 94, England.

24. Thompson, N.G., and Syrett, B.C. (1993). Corrosion Monitoring Using Harmonic Impedance
Spectroscopy. CORROSION/93, Paper No. 429, NACE International, Houston, Texas.

25. NACE (1996). Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic

Piping. NACE Standard RP-0169-96., Item 21001, NACE, Houston.

26. Heidersbach, R. (1987). Metals Handbook-Corrosion, 9th ed., Metals Park, OH: ASM
International, Vol. 13, P 470.

27. Kobayashi, T. (1974). Effect of Environmental Factors on the Protective Potential of Steel.
In the Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Metallic Corrosion, Houston: NACE
627.

28. Didas, J. (2000). Cathodic Protection for Metallic Structure. Materials Performance, Vol. 39,
No. 4, p 26.

29. Gummow, R.A. (1998). Using Coupons and Probes to Determine Cathodic Protection
Levels. Materials Performance, Vol. 37, No. 8, p 24.

30. Jankowski, J. (2010). Monitoring Methods of Cathodic Protection of Pipelines. Department

of Anticorrosion Protection, Gdansk University of Technology, Poland.

31. Pawson, R.L. (2012). Technical Aspects of Close Interval Potential Surveys. NACE CP24,
Cathodic Protection Specialist, Cybex US Corporation, AUCSC Morgantown.

32. Technical Cordination Committe (2010). Control of External Corrosion on Underground and
Submerged Metallic Piping Systems, NACE SP-0169-2007, NACE International, Calgary,
Alberta.

R S. Publication, [email protected] Page 65

View publication stats