Untitled notebook (2)

A natural gas pipeline has been inactive since 2015 and there are concerns about bringing it back online due to corrosion risks. The internal corrosion risk is serious, while the external corrosion risk is low. A hydrostatic test is needed to ensure the pipeline's integrity. If it passes, a comprehensive plan is recommended to address corrosion risks through continuous monitoring and maintenance. The cost and environmental impact of reactivating the pipeline are debated, with some viewing natural gas as a temporary solution and others seeing it as a hindrance to sustainable energy. The decision to reactivate the pipeline should be part of a larger energy strategy considering all costs and benefits. All right, so are you ready for this one? We've got reports, quite a few, actually, on a natural gas pipeline that's been just sitting there doing nothing. And honestly, it kind of reads like a detective novel. Really? Yeah, we've got corrosion mysteries and these regulatory bubbles. And the biggest question is, can this thing even be brought back online? Yeah, trying to bring this pipeline back to life safely and effectively is definitely a real challenge. And that's what these reports are trying to figure out. Exactly. And that's where this Deep Dive comes in. We're going to cut through all the technical jargon and zoom in on the most important stuff so you can actually understand what it all means. That sounds good. Okay, so first things first, this pipeline is in the Kaibab South Field. It's made of steel. And it hasn't moved an ounce of natural gas since 2015. Oh, and also, it was built for sweet gas, so no hydrogen sulfide. Okay, so that sweet gas detail that you just mentioned is actually really important, because it tells us about what kind of corrosion we might find, and it also gives us clues about what conditions it was designed to handle. Yeah, that makes sense. And here's like the plot twist. The discontinuation process back in 2020 was noncompliant. Oh, wow. Yeah. That's a problem. Skipping steps when you take a pipeline out of service can have some serious consequences, especially when it comes to corrosion building up inside. Exactly. And speaking of corrosion, the reports predict a possible internal corrosion loss of 20 to 30% of the pipe wall thickness. Wow. Yeah, pretty scary, right? Yeah, that is significant. And get this, this pipeline isn't just like out in the middle of nowhere. It's in an area where other pipelines have actually failed. Yeah. So this isn't just like a theoretical thing. It's a real concern based on what's already happened before. Yeah, you're right. The report actually labels the internal corrosion risk as serious, and it gives it a 5-3 score on the risk matrix, which basically means that there is a moderate high chance of corrosion happening both in the past and also projected into the future. So past and future corrosion problems, and it's in an area with a history of failures. Exactly. The report highlights glycol slugging and corrosion inhibitors as ways to fight this glycol basically dries out the pipeline, getting rid of the water that causes corrosion, and the inhibitors, well, they inhibit the corrosion process. Makes sense, but it's not just all the years of it being inactive causing corrosion headaches, is it? The report also mentions how the wells upstream behave. Right. And how they are started up could potentially stir up debris and corrosive gunk inside the pipeline. Well, if the pipe's been sitting still for years, and then all of a sudden you flush a ton of water through it, you're going to dislodge some nasty stuff, right? Exactly. And in this case, that stuff could be super corrosive and would speed up the internal corrosion even more. So we've got possible problems from both past inactivity and future operations in the well. Is this pipeline just doomed? Well, not necessarily. The report does give a path forward, but it depends on some continuous effort and investment. We're talking about periodic pigging on top of the glycol slugging and inhibitors. So pigging is basically like sending a cleaning crew through the pipeline to scrub out anything that could cause problems. Okay. So internal corrosion is a challenge, but it can be managed with the right approach. What about the outside of the pipeline? Are we looking at the same level of risk there? Well, interestingly enough, the report paints a totally different picture when it comes to the external corrosion. Oh, really? Yeah. So remember how the internal corrosion is serious? Well, the external risk is labeled as low, and it gets a one-three score. Oh, wow. That's a relief. What's the reason for that difference? So the report says that this lower risk is because of the good condition of the coating and the cathodic protection system. The coating basically acts as a shield against the elements, and cathodic protection uses electric currents to stop corrosion from happening from the outside. So it sounds like they built this pipeline with some pretty heavy-duty anti-corrosion measures from the beginning. Is that why the other pipelines in the area failed while this one seems to be holding up okay? That's a really good point. The report says that those other failures were all on pipelines built before 1990 using older construction methods. So this pipeline we're talking about doesn't have those same vulnerabilities. It's like comparing a classic car to a modern one. A newer model will probably have better safety features, right? So different era. Yeah. Different risk profile. So we've talked about internal and external corrosion. But before this pipeline can even think about flowing gas again, there's one major hurdle that it has to get through, right? The hydrostatic test. You got it. Before we even think about reactivating, we need to be absolutely sure that this pipeline can handle the pressure. So that's where the hydrostatic test comes in. It's the ultimate test of integrity. So basically if it springs a leak or shows any weakness under pressure, that's a big no-go. What kind of pressure are we talking about here? The report says 10,570 kPa, which is like 1.4 times the maximum operating pressure of 7,550 kPa. They're not messing around. Wow. Yeah. That's a 53% stress level, more than its normal operating conditions. And the test isn't just a quick check either. It runs for four hours. Wow. So that should be plenty of time for any hidden problems to show themselves, right? Exactly. So we're not giving the pipeline this big stress test, but instead of a treadmill, we're using water. Oh, okay. I see. So we fill it up and then crank up the pressure higher than what it would experience during normal operation. And then we see if it holds. Yeah. So if it like springs a leak or shows any weakness under pressure, that's a big red flag, right? Definitely. So what happens next if it passes the test with flying colors? Do we just flip the switch and start bumping gas? Well, not so fast. Remember all those internal and external corrosion risks we talked about? The report has this whole comprehensive plan to tackle those head on. It's not a one-time fix. You know, it's all about continuous monitoring and maintenance to keep that pipeline running safely and smoothly over the long haul. Okay. So let's break down this plan. What are the key things they recommend doing? So for the internal corrosion, they're suggesting a three-pronged approach, continuous inhibitor injection, regular pigging and batch inhibitor applications. Okay. So it's like a multi-layered defense strategy to keep that internal corrosion under control. What about the external corrosion? The report says that it's really important to keep up that strong cathodic protection system that we talked about earlier. It's doing a great job so far, but we need to make sure it stays that way. So that means we need ongoing monitoring and adjustments to keep that electric current flowing and protecting the pipeline from external corrosion. So it's all about being proactive and keeping a close eye on things makes sense. So the report basically says hydro test mitigate and monitor. Do you think they're being a little too optimistic about bringing it back online? It's definitely a cautiously optimistic view. While the corrosion risks are a big deal, the fact that this pipeline is relatively new and was built with modern construction methods is a good thing. Plus this detailed plan, if it's done right, should take care of the most pressing issues. But let's be real for a second. It's not just about the technical stuff, right? There's a whole other side. We have to think about the money. The report doesn't really talk about the finances, but I'm sure all these recommendations come with a pretty hefty price tag. Exactly. The big question is, what's the return on investment? How do the costs of all this stuff stack up against the potential benefits of getting this pipeline back up and running? And we can't forget about the big elephant in the room. The energy world is changing. Fast renewables are becoming more popular and everyone's pushing for cleaner energy. So where does reactivating a natural gas pipeline fit into all of this? Is it a step backward or like a necessary bridge to a cleaner energy future? That's the core of the debate. Some people see natural gas as a bridge fuel, a cleaner option compared to those dirtier fossil fuels like coal. So like a temporary solution until renewables can take over completely. Exactly. Natural gas does produce less emissions when it's burned compared to coal, and it can provide reliable energy while we work towards a cleaner future. But then on the other hand, some people argue that putting money into natural gas infrastructure just keeps us hooked on fossil fuels and slows down the move to truly sustainable energy. So are we investing in the past or the future? It's a tough decision. There are strong arguments on both sides. The choice to reactivate this pipeline or any fossil fuel infrastructure really has to be part of a bigger, well thought out energy strategy. One that looks at not just the immediate technical and financial factors, but also those long term environmental and societal impacts. Exactly. Making smart choices that consider all the costs and benefits both for today and for the future. You know, this deep dive hasn't just been about understanding the technical stuff about this pipeline. It's really been about grappling with these complex questions about our energy choices and what they mean for the world. And that's what makes it so interesting. We've gone deeper than the surface to find all these layers of complexity, and it started a real conversation about the challenges we face in this ever changing world. Yeah, we've given you the knowledge to ask the right questions and have informed discussions about the future of this pipeline and the bigger energy landscape. Okay, so we've spent all this time talking about the challenges of getting this pipeline back in action, the technical stuff, the money stuff. But there's one more thing we have to consider, right? The environmental impact. Absolutely. We can't just ignore that, especially with everyone moving towards cleaner energy, reactivating this pipeline, basically means we'd be using fossil fuels for longer. And that brings up some important questions. Yeah, for sure. How much pollution comes from producing and moving natural gas? How does that compare to other energy sources, and does this decision even fit with our long-term goals for sustainability? Those are really important questions, and the answers aren't always simple while natural gas is cleaner than coal when you burn it. Getting it out of the ground and moving it around can release methane, which is a really bad greenhouse gas, so it's not a perfect solution. Right. So it's like a trade-off. We have to weigh the potential damage to the environment against the benefits of having a reliable source of energy, at least for now. Exactly. It's about finding that balance, and that balance might be different depending on the situation. Things like how old and efficient the pipeline is, if there are other energy sources available, and how much energy people need. All those things matter. It's complicated for sure, but having this information, understanding the environmental impact is crucial for making the right choices. I completely agree. We need to have these conversations, even if they're tough, to weigh the pros and cons and think about the long-term effects of our energy decisions. And that's what we've been trying to do in this deep dive, right? We didn't just give you the facts. We dug into the complexities, the unknowns, and all the different opinions out there. We've given you the tools to look at the situation, ask the right questions, and have real discussions about this pipeline and the future of energy in general. So as we wrap things up, we encourage you to keep learning about this stuff. Research the impact of different energy sources, think about the economic and social sides of energy choices, and stay updated on energy policy. Because the future of energy is everyone's responsibility, and it starts with each of us making informed decisions. Well, that's about it for this deep dive. Thanks for joining us, and we'll see you next time for another adventure into the world of knowledge and discovery. And don't forget, the world is full of amazing things waiting to be discovered. We'll be here to help you explore them.