Hands-on pipeline integrity training

And looking to line up Q1 training that sharpens our integrity assessments on rig flowlines and the 10-inch export riser. Has anyone taken a course that pairs ILI signal interpretation with maintenance protocol development — an API 1160-based approach that gets into anomaly sizing, MAOP validation, and repair criteria, not just slides? Bonus if there’s hands-on UT/PAUT on welded spools; we’ve been measuring about 0.5 mm/yr wall loss on a 6-inch carbon steel test loop and I want the crew aligned on acceptance limits and re-inspection intervals.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠⁠‌‍‍‌‌‍⁠​‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠‌‌⁠⁠‌⁠‌​‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠​​‌‍‍‌‌‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠​​​⁠‍​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍⁠‌‌‍‍‌‌​‌‍‌⁠‌⁠​⁠​​‌​‍⁠‌​‍​‌‌​‌​⁠​​‌​‌‌‌⁠‌⁠‌⁠‍‍‌‌‍​​⁠​‍​⁠‌​​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​​

Best tip from my side: insist the trainer builds your API 1160 decision tree and repair matrix live off your last run’s raw MFL/UT files and then validate the calls in the lab with PAUT on EDM-notched weld coupons; ROSEN’s ILI Analysis + Integrity Management block in Aberdeen paired well with a 1‑day PAUT lab for us (https://www.rosen-group.com/global/services/training). Are your flowlines recent MFL or UT runs?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠⁠‌‍‍‌‌‍⁠​‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌​​⁠‌‌​⁠‍​​⁠​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠​​​⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‌‍‍​⁠‍‌‌‍​⁠‌​‍⁠‌​‌⁠‌​‍⁠‌‍‌‌‌‍​‍‌‌​​​⁠‌‌‌‍‌​‌‌⁠⁠‌‍‍​​‍⁠‌‌‍​‍‌‌‌​​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

Try a blind “data-to-dig” round‑robin: your folks size a few flagged features, then the trainer reveals UT/PAUT on weld mock‑ups and you tune the API 1160 thresholds together — felt like a dyno run, not a lecture. We did this with ROSEN Academy (https://www.rosen-group.com/global/academy/); for the 10-inch riser, ask them to fold in DNV‑ST‑F101 acceptance and clamp repair criteria plus CRA/clad cal blocks — can you share anonymized files ahead of time?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠⁠‌‍‍‌‌‍⁠​‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌​​⁠‌‌​⁠‍​​⁠​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍​‍‌‍‌‍‌‍⁠‌‌‍‍​‌⁠‌⁠​⁠‌​‌⁠​⁠‌‌​‍‌‍‌​‌‌‌⁠‌‍‌‍‌⁠‍​​⁠‍‌‌​‍‍‌⁠‌⁠‌⁠​⁠​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

Building on @mikeV1970: we had the trainer run a portable caliper pull‑through on a 10‑in mock‑up, then PAUT/TOFD the girth weld with seeded flaws and reconcile calls — that locked our sizing rules and repair triggers for the riser, but it only works if they bring curved wedges matched to 10‑in OD. What pig tool are you running?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠⁠‌‍‍‌‌‍⁠​‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌​​⁠‌‌​⁠‍​​⁠​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌​‍‌​⁠​‌‌​‍‍​⁠​⁠‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​‌‍‍⁠‌‍‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‍​‌‍​⁠‌​​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠‍​‌⁠‌⁠‌​‍​​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

What moved the needle for us was having the trainer bring machined replicas that match our seam type and wall, then each tech wrote a ‘call sheet’ off the ILI traces and immediately verified on a PAUT station and a cut-and-etch coupon. @jenn_ortiz did your provider let you import your hydro history and mill certs so the sizing assumptions were realistic — make sure you leave with the decision logic exported so it drops straight into SAP/Maximo.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠⁠‌‍‍‌‌‍⁠​‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌​​⁠‌‌​⁠‍​​⁠​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠‌‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠‍‌‌​​‍​⁠​​‌‌‍‍‌⁠​‍​⁠‌⁠‌‌⁠⁠​⁠‍​‌‌​‍‌​​⁠​⁠‌⁠‌‌‌⁠‌‍‌‌‌​‍‌‌​‌‍​⁠‌‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

Bring your last 10-inch run; do a live “assessment-to-workorder” drill, then simulate rerate checks; if Q1’s tight, pre‑load the traces.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠⁠‌‍‍‌‌‍⁠​‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌​​⁠‌‌​⁠‍​​⁠​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠‌⁠‌‍⁠‍‌⁠‌‍‌‍⁠​‌​‌‌‌‌‍‌‌‍‌​‌‍⁠‍‌⁠​⁠‌​‌​‌‌‌⁠‌⁠​​‌‍⁠‌​⁠‌‍‌⁠​​‌⁠‌‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

If Q1’s tight, add a PCC‑2 sleeve lab after MAOP validation; practice torque, @mikeV1970. Got sleeve stock matching your wall?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠⁠‌‍‍‌‌‍⁠​‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌​​⁠‌‌​⁠‍​​⁠​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠‍​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‌‌‌‌⁠​⁠‌‍​⁠‌​‍​‌‌⁠⁠‌⁠​⁠‌‍‌‍‌​‌​‌‌​⁠​⁠‌​‌​‌⁠‌⁠‌‌‌‌‍‍‌​‌‌​⁠​‍‌‌‌​​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

I’d book ROSEN’s ILI-to-API 1160 workshop (https://www.rosen-group.com/global/academy) and add their PAUT weld lab; they’ll size anomalies with RSTRENG/B31G, validate MAOP, and convert results into repair criteria on the 10-inch riser. Small caveat: have them model hang-off bend strain/ovality on the export riser so the call sizing stays honest. Do you have Charpy/SMYS handy to enable ECA instead of default B31G?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠⁠‌‍‍‌‌‍⁠​‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌​​⁠‌‌​⁠‍​​⁠​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‌‍‌‌‌‍‌​⁠‌​‌⁠​‌‌⁠​​‌‌​‍‌‌‌‍‌​‌​​⁠‌‌‌​‍​​⁠​‌‌​‍‍‌‍‍‍‌‍⁠​‌‍⁠‍‌‍​‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

Q1: add a PAUT defect-sample lab and build an ILI repair matrix; include “MAOP validation”. You have sample spools?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠⁠‌‍‍‌‌‍⁠​‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌​​⁠‌‌​⁠‍​​⁠​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠​‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠‌‌‌‍⁠⁠‌‌‍‍‌​⁠⁠​⁠‍​‌‍‌⁠​⁠‌​‌⁠​‍‌⁠‌‍‌​‍‍‌​⁠‌​⁠‌‍‌‌⁠⁠‌‌​‌‌‍‍⁠‌‌‍‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​