FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 1 of 125

Fitness for Service Assessment of the TMPC 3 x 20 inch and 2 x 26 inch Diameter Gas

Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo

Prepared for

TECMA S.r.l

Project Number: Q113186_001

Version: 001

Date: 27th April 2013

Version Date Author Checked by Approved by Project

001 27th April 2013 I Skinner R Matthews R Matthews Q113186

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 2 of 125

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PIMS of London Ltd. were contracted to determine the risks posed to the immediate and future integrity of the 3 x 20 inch and 2 x 26 inch diameter, 156km natural gas pipelines from Cap Bon (Tunisia) to Mazara Del Vallo (Sicily) operated by Transmediterranean Pipeline Company (TMPC). 20A Line 2 Sud On the basis of the data and assessments described in this study which are principally based upon the ILI surveys from 2012 and 2003, the main conclusions are: 1. There were no external metal loss defects, internal metal loss defects, dents, ferrous

metal objects or girth weld anomalies identified by the 2012 ILI.

2. The distribution of the 38 external and 198 internal manufacturing defects appears random both along and around the pipe and are typically shallow, short and narrow.

3. All the reported manufacturing features were acceptable for operation at the MAOP of 210 bar at the time of the inspection (September 2012).

4. A comprehensive review of the ILI signals between both the 2003 and 2012 inspections showed:

i) No evidence of growth between any of the manufacturing defects compared, and

ii) No evidence of change in the inspection signals between 2003 and 2012 in either the Cap Bon or Mazara Del Vallo onshore sections of pipe.

Therefore, the following recommendations are made: 1. Provided TMPC do not witness any degradation in their external corrosion prevention

systems onshore via their routine above ground surveys (i.e. CIS, DCVG, etc.) and the pipeline continues to transmit dry gas, the re-inspection interval can be set to 10 years.

2. If external corrosion in the onshore sections of pipe is suspected in the future, TMPC should reduce the re-inspection interval accordingly.

3. It would be advisable that any ROV data should reviewed to ensure that any free spans that may have been identified are acceptable.

4. Following any re-inspection, a further Fitness for Service assessment should be conducted to:

i) Confirm the integrity of the pipeline,

ii) Measure the rate of any corrosion growth, and

iii) Suggest a new re-inspection interval.

20B Line 1 Nord On the basis of the data and assessments described in this study which are principally based upon the ILI surveys from 2012 and 2003, the main conclusions are: 1. There were no internal metal loss defects, ferrous metal objects or girth weld

anomalies identified by the 2012 ILI.

2. There were 3 external metal loss defects identified by the 2012 ILI.

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 3 of 125

3. The distribution of the 22 external and 372 internal manufacturing defects appears random both along and around the pipe and are typically shallow, short and narrow.

4. All the reported features were acceptable for operation at the MAOP of 210 bar at the time of the inspection (October 2012).

5. A comprehensive review of the ILI signals between both the 2003 and 2012 inspections showed:

i) No evidence of growth between any of the manufacturing defects compared, and

ii) No evidence of change in the inspection signals between 2003 and 2012 in either the Cap Bon or Mazara Del Vallo onshore sections of pipe.

Therefore, the following recommendations are made: 1. Provided TMPC do not witness any degradation in their external corrosion prevention

systems onshore via their routine above ground surveys (i.e. CIS, DCVG, etc.) and the pipeline continues to transmit dry gas, the re-inspection interval can be set to 10 years.

2. If external corrosion in the onshore sections of pipe is suspected in the future, TMPC should reduce the re-inspection interval accordingly.

3. It would be advisable that any ROV data should reviewed to ensure that any free spans that may have been identified are acceptable.

4. Following any re-inspection, a further Fitness for Service assessment should be conducted to:

i) Confirm the integrity of the pipeline,

ii) Measure the rate of any corrosion growth, and

iii) Suggest a new re-inspection interval.

20C Line 1 Sud On the basis of the data and assessments described in this study which are principally based upon the ILI surveys from 2012 and 2003, the main conclusions are: 1. There were no external metal loss defects or girth weld anomalies identified by the

2012 ILI.

2. The distribution of the 24 external manufacturing defects appears random both along and around the pipe and are typically shallow, short and narrow.

3. The distribution of the 473 internal manufacturing defects appear to be concentrated between 65-115km and their distribution in relation to the circumferential orientation appears to be around either 3 or 9 oclock. This may be due to the handling process used on the lay barge during construction.

4. All the reported features were acceptable for operation at the MAOP of 210 bar at the time of the inspection (September 2012).

5. The 8 dents reported by the 2012 inspection are insignificant in relation to the integrity of the pipeline.

6. The ferrous metal object reported by the 2012 inspection is insignificant in relation to the integrity of the pipeline.

7. A comparison of the corresponding signals from both the 2003 and the 2012 inspections was not possible due to:

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 4 of 125

Type 1 channels 61-120 being offset throughout the 2012 inspection, and

Type 1 channels 121-180 being faulty throughout the 2012 inspection.

Whilst the 2012 inspection report declares that corrective procedures had allowed a full analysis of the data, these data quality issues have not allowed any comparison of signals to be performed.

8. The offshore sections of pipe are most likely not active in relation to external or internal corrosion due to either the protective external sacrificial anodes and the fact that the product is dry gas and no internal corrosion mechanism can exist.

9. The minimum remaining life for any of the metal loss defects located onshore is > 27 years.

Therefore, the following recommendations are made: 1. Provided TMPC do not witness any degradation in their external corrosion prevention

systems onshore via their routine above ground surveys (i.e. CIS, DCVG, etc.) and the pipeline continues to transmit dry gas, the re-inspection interval can be set to 10 years.

2. If external corrosion in the onshore sections of pipe is suspected in the future, TMPC should reduce the re-inspection interval accordingly.

3. It would be advisable that any ROV data should reviewed to ensure that any free spans that may have been identified are acceptable.

4. Following any re-inspection, a further Fitness for Service assessment should be conducted to:

i) Confirm the integrity of the pipeline,

ii) Measure the rate of any corrosion growth, and

iii) Suggest a new re-inspection interval.

26A Line 3 Sud On the basis of the data and assessments described in this study which are principally based upon the ILI surveys from 2012 and 2002, the main conclusions are: 1. There were no external metal loss defects, internal metal loss defects, dents or ferrous

metal objects identified by the 2012 ILI.

2. The distribution of the 1 external and 636 internal manufacturing defects appears random both along and around the pipe and are typically shallow, short and narrow.

3. The 3 reported girth weld anomalies are not considered significant to the integrity of the pipeline.

4. All the reported manufacturing features were acceptable for operation at the MAOP of 208 bar at the time of the inspection (November 2012).

5. A comprehensive review of the ILI signals between both the 2002 and 2012 inspections showed:

i) No evidence of growth between any of the manufacturing defects compared, and

ii) No evidence of change in the inspection signals between 2002 and 2012 in either the Cap Bon or Mazara Del Vallo onshore sections of pipe.

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 5 of 125

Therefore, the following recommendations are made: 1. Provided TMPC do not witness any degradation in their external corrosion prevention

systems onshore via their routine above ground surveys (i.e. CIS, DCVG, etc.) and the pipeline continues to transmit dry gas, the re-inspection interval can be set to 10 years.

2. If external corrosion in the onshore sections of pipe is suspected in the future, TMPC should reduce the re-inspection interval accordingly.

3. It would be advisable that any ROV data should reviewed to ensure that any free spans that may have been identified are acceptable.

4. Following any re-inspection, a further Fitness for Service assessment should be conducted to:

i) Confirm the integrity of the pipeline,

ii) Measure the rate of any corrosion growth, and

iii) Suggest a new re-inspection interval.

26B Line 4 Sud On the basis of the data and assessments described in this study which are principally based upon the ILI surveys from 2012 and 2002, the main conclusions are: 1. There were no external metal loss defects, internal metal loss defects, girth weld

anomoalies or ferrous metal objects identified by the 2012 ILI.

2. The distribution of the 12 external and 762 internal manufacturing defects appears random both along and around the pipe and are typically shallow, short and narrow.

3. The 2 reported dents are not considered significant to the integrity of the pipeline.

4. The 5 reported ferrous metal objects are not considered significant to the integrity of the pipeline.

5. All the reported manufacturing features were acceptable for operation at the MAOP of 208 bar at the time of the inspection (November 2012).

6. A comprehensive review of the ILI signals between both the 2002 and 2012 inspections showed:

i) No evidence of growth between any of the manufacturing defects compared, and

ii) No evidence of change in the inspection signals between 2002 and 2012 in either the Cap Bon or Mazara Del Vallo onshore sections of pipe.

Therefore, the following recommendations are made: 1. Provided TMPC do not witness any degradation in their external corrosion prevention

systems onshore via their routine above ground surveys (i.e. CIS, DCVG, etc.) and the pipeline continues to transmit dry gas, the re-inspection interval can be set to 10 years.

2. If external corrosion in the onshore sections of pipe is suspected in the future, TMPC should reduce the re-inspection interval accordingly.

3. It would be advisable that any ROV data should reviewed to ensure that any free spans that may have been identified are acceptable.

4. Following any re-inspection, a further Fitness for Service assessment should be conducted to:

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 6 of 125

i) Confirm the integrity of the pipeline,

ii) Measure the rate of any corrosion growth, and

iii) Suggest a new re-inspection interval.

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 7 of 125

MAIN REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 13

2. 20A - LINE 2 SUD .............................................................................................................................. 14

2.1 Findings of the 2012 Inspection .............................................................................................. 14

2.1.1 External Metal Loss Features .................................................................................... 14 2.1.2 Internal Metal Loss Features ...................................................................................... 14 2.1.3 External Manufacturing Features ............................................................................... 14 2.1.4 Internal Manufacturing Features ................................................................................ 18 2.1.5 Dents .......................................................................................................................... 22 2.1.6 Girth Weld Anomalies................................................................................................. 22 2.1.7 Ferrous Metal Objects ................................................................................................ 22

2.2 Immediate Integrity ................................................................................................................. 23

2.2.1 Relevant Assessment Methods .................................................................................. 23

2.2.1.1 Metal Loss Defects .................................................................................................... 23 2.2.1.2 Manufacturing Defects ............................................................................................... 23

2.2.2 Definition of Repair Criteria ........................................................................................ 23

2.2.2.1 Metal Loss Defects .................................................................................................... 23 2.2.2.2 Manufacturing Defects ............................................................................................... 24

2.2.3 Sizing Tolerance ......................................................................................................... 25 2.2.4 Assessment of Metal Loss Defects (2012 ILI Data) ................................................... 25

2.2.4.1 Assessment of the Metal Loss Features Axial Dimensions .................................... 25 2.2.4.2 Assessment of the Metal Loss Features Circ. Dimensions ..................................... 25

2.2.5 Assessment of the Manufacturing Defects (2012 ILI Data) ....................................... 25 2.2.6 Assessment of Other Defects (2012 ILI Data) ........................................................... 28

2.2.6.1 Dents ......................................................................................................................... 28 2.2.6.2 Girth Weld Anomalies ................................................................................................ 28 2.2.6.3 Ferrous Metal Objects ............................................................................................... 28

2.2.7 Assessment of ROV Data .......................................................................................... 28

2.3 Growth Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 29 2.4 Future Integrity and Re-inspection Interval ............................................................................ 31 2.5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 32 2.6 Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 33

3. 20B - LINE 1 NORD ........................................................................................................................... 34

3.1 Findings of the 2012 Inspection .............................................................................................. 34

3.1.1 External Metal Loss Features .................................................................................... 34 3.1.2 Internal Metal Loss Features ...................................................................................... 34 3.1.3 External Manufacturing Features ............................................................................... 34 3.1.4 Internal Manufacturing Features ................................................................................ 38 3.1.5 Dents .......................................................................................................................... 42 3.1.6 Girth Weld Anomalies................................................................................................. 42 3.1.7 Ferrous Metal Objects ................................................................................................ 42

3.2 Immediate Integrity ................................................................................................................. 43

3.2.1 Relevant Assessment Methods .................................................................................. 43

3.2.1.1 Metal Loss Defects .................................................................................................... 43 3.2.1.2 Manufacturing Defects ............................................................................................... 43

3.2.2 Definition of Repair Criteria ........................................................................................ 43

3.2.2.1 Metal Loss Defects .................................................................................................... 43 3.2.2.2 Manufacturing Defects ............................................................................................... 44

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 8 of 125

3.2.3 Sizing Tolerance ......................................................................................................... 45 3.2.4 Assessment of Metal Loss Defects (2012 ILI Data) ................................................... 45

3.2.4.1 Assessment of the Metal Loss Features Axial Dimensions .................................... 45 3.2.4.2 Assessment of the Metal Loss Features Circ. Dimensions ..................................... 46

3.2.5 Assessment of the Manufacturing Defects (2012 ILI Data) ....................................... 47 3.2.6 Assessment of Other Defects (2012 ILI Data) ........................................................... 50

3.2.6.1 Dents ......................................................................................................................... 50 3.2.6.2 Girth Weld Anomalies ................................................................................................ 54 3.2.6.3 Ferrous Metal Objects ............................................................................................... 54

3.2.7 Assessment of ROV Data .......................................................................................... 54

3.3 Growth Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 55 3.4 Future Integrity and Re-inspection Interval ............................................................................ 57 3.5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 58 3.6 Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 59

4. 20C - LINE 1 SUD .............................................................................................................................. 60

4.1 Findings of the 2012 Inspection .............................................................................................. 60

4.1.1 External Metal Loss Features .................................................................................... 60 4.1.2 Internal Metal Loss Features ...................................................................................... 60 4.1.3 External Manufacturing Features ............................................................................... 60 4.1.4 Internal Manufacturing Features ................................................................................ 64 4.1.5 Dents .......................................................................................................................... 68 4.1.6 Girth Weld Anomalies................................................................................................. 68 4.1.7 Ferrous Metal Objects ................................................................................................ 68

4.2 Immediate Integrity ................................................................................................................. 69

4.2.1 Relevant Assessment Methods .................................................................................. 69

4.2.1.1 Metal Loss Defects .................................................................................................... 69 4.2.1.2 Manufacturing Defects ............................................................................................... 69

4.2.2 Definition of Repair Criteria ........................................................................................ 69

4.2.2.1 Metal Loss Defects .................................................................................................... 69 4.2.2.2 Manufacturing Defects ............................................................................................... 70

4.2.3 Sizing Tolerance ......................................................................................................... 71 4.2.4 Assessment of Metal Loss Defects (2012 ILI Data) ................................................... 71

4.2.4.1 Assessment of the Metal Loss Features Axial Dimensions .................................... 71 4.2.4.2 Assessment of the Metal Loss Features Circ. Dimensions ..................................... 72

4.2.5 Assessment of the Manufacturing Defects (2012 ILI Data) ....................................... 73 4.2.6 Assessment of Other Defects (2012 ILI Data) ........................................................... 76

4.2.6.1 Dents ......................................................................................................................... 76 4.2.6.2 Girth Weld Anomalies ................................................................................................ 78 4.2.6.3 Ferrous Metal Objects ............................................................................................... 78

4.2.7 Assessment of ROV Data .......................................................................................... 78

4.3 Growth Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 79 4.4 Future Integrity and Re-inspection Interval ............................................................................ 81 4.5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 82 4.6 Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 83

5. 26A - LINE 3 SUD .............................................................................................................................. 84

5.1 Findings of the 2012 Inspection .............................................................................................. 84

5.1.1 External Metal Loss Features .................................................................................... 84 5.1.2 Internal Metal Loss Features ...................................................................................... 84 5.1.3 External Manufacturing Features ............................................................................... 84 5.1.4 Internal Manufacturing Features ................................................................................ 84

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 9 of 125

5.1.5 Dents .......................................................................................................................... 88 5.1.6 Girth Weld Anomalies................................................................................................. 88 5.1.7 Ferrous Metal Objects ................................................................................................ 88

5.2 Immediate Integrity ................................................................................................................. 89

5.2.1 Relevant Assessment Methods .................................................................................. 89

5.2.1.1 Metal Loss Defects .................................................................................................... 89 5.2.1.2 Manufacturing Defects ............................................................................................... 89

5.2.2 Definition of Repair Criteria ........................................................................................ 89

5.2.2.1 Metal Loss Defects .................................................................................................... 89 5.2.2.2 Manufacturing Defects ............................................................................................... 90

5.2.3 Sizing Tolerance ......................................................................................................... 91 5.2.4 Assessment of Metal Loss Defects (2012 ILI Data) ................................................... 91

5.2.4.1 Assessment of the Metal Loss Features Axial Dimensions .................................... 91 5.2.4.2 Assessment of the Metal Loss Features Circ. Dimensions ..................................... 91

5.2.5 Assessment of the Manufacturing Defects (2012 ILI Data) ....................................... 91 5.2.6 Assessment of Other Defects (2012 ILI Data) ........................................................... 94

5.2.6.1 Dents ......................................................................................................................... 94 5.2.6.2 Girth Weld Anomalies ................................................................................................ 94 5.2.6.3 Ferrous Metal Objects ............................................................................................... 95

5.2.7 Assessment of ROV Data .......................................................................................... 95

5.3 Growth Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 96 5.4 Future Integrity and Re-inspection Interval ............................................................................ 98 5.5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 99 5.6 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 100

6. 26B - LINE 4 SUD ............................................................................................................................ 101

6.1 Findings of the 2012 Inspection ............................................................................................ 101

6.1.1 External Metal Loss Features .................................................................................. 101 6.1.2 Internal Metal Loss Features .................................................................................... 101 6.1.3 External Manufacturing Features ............................................................................. 101 6.1.4 Internal Manufacturing Features .............................................................................. 105 6.1.5 Dents ........................................................................................................................ 109 6.1.6 Girth Weld Anomalies............................................................................................... 109 6.1.7 Ferrous Metal Objects .............................................................................................. 109

6.2 Immediate Integrity ............................................................................................................... 110

6.2.1 Relevant Assessment Methods ................................................................................ 110

6.2.1.1 Metal Loss Defects .................................................................................................. 110 6.2.1.2 Manufacturing Defects ............................................................................................. 110

6.2.2 Definition of Repair Criteria ...................................................................................... 110

6.2.2.1 Metal Loss Defects .................................................................................................. 110 6.2.2.2 Manufacturing Defects ............................................................................................. 111

6.2.3 Sizing Tolerance ....................................................................................................... 112 6.2.4 Assessment of Metal Loss Defects (2012 ILI Data) ................................................. 112

6.2.4.1 Assessment of the Metal Loss Features Axial Dimensions .................................. 112 6.2.4.2 Assessment of the Metal Loss Features Circ. Dimensions ................................... 112

6.2.5 Assessment of the Manufacturing Defects (2012 ILI Data) ..................................... 112 6.2.6 Assessment of Other Defects (2012 ILI Data) ......................................................... 115

6.2.6.1 Dents ....................................................................................................................... 115 6.2.6.2 Girth Weld Anomalies .............................................................................................. 118 6.2.6.3 Ferrous Metal Objects ............................................................................................. 118

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 10 of 125

6.2.7 Assessment of ROV Data ........................................................................................ 118

6.3 Growth Analysis .................................................................................................................... 119 6.4 Future Integrity and Re-inspection Interval .......................................................................... 121 6.5 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 122 6.6 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 123

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 124

APPENDICES Appendix A - Summary of Basic Input Data

Appendix B - Description of Assessment Methods

Appendix C - Qualitative Assessment of Feature Signals Between 2012 and 2002-3

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Route .............................................................................................................. 13 Figure 2: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features Along the Pipeline (20A) ................................................. 15 Figure 3: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location (20A) .................. 15 Figure 4: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location and Distance along the Pipeline (20A)............................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 5: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Defect Depth (20A) .................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 6: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Axial Length (20A) ................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Figure 7: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Distance Along the Pipeline and Circumferential Length (20A) ....................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 8: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features Along the Pipeline (20A) .................................................. 18 Figure 9: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location (20A) .................. 19 Figure 10: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location and Distance along the Pipeline (20A)............................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 11: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Defect Depth (20A) .................................................................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 12: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Axial Length (20A) ................................................................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 13: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Distance Along the Pipeline and Circumferential Length (20A) ....................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 14: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Onshore 26.97mm Pipe) (20A) ........ 26 Figure 15: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Onshore 19.05mm Pipe) (20A) ........ 26 Figure 16: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Offshore 19.05mm Pipe) (20A) ........ 27 Figure 17: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Offshore 20.62mm Pipe) (20A) ........ 27 Figure 18: Location of the Features Selected for ILI Comparison (20A) ....................................................................... 29 Figure 19: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features Along the Pipeline (20B) ................................................ 35 Figure 20: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location (20B) ................ 35 Figure 21: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location and Distance along the Pipeline (20B) ............................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 22: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Defect Depth (20B) .................................................................................................................................................................. 36 Figure 23: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Axial Length (20B) ................................................................................................................................................................ 37 Figure 24: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Distance Along the Pipeline and Circumferential Length (20B) ....................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 25: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features Along the Pipeline (20B) ................................................ 38 Figure 26: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location (20B) ................. 39

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 11 of 125

Figure 27: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location and Distance along the Pipeline (20B) ............................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 28: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Defect Depth (20B) .................................................................................................................................................................. 40 Figure 29: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Axial Length (20B) ................................................................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 30: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Distance Along the Pipeline and Circumferential Length (20B) ....................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 31: Significance of the Metal Loss Features According to DNV-RP-F101 (Onshore 19.05mm Pipe) (20B) ....... 46 Figure 32: Significance of the Metal Loss Features According to Kastner (Onshore 19.05mm Pipe) (20B) ................. 47 Figure 33: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Onshore 26.97mm Pipe) (20B) ........ 48 Figure 34: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Onshore 19.05mm Pipe) (20B) ........ 48 Figure 35: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Offshore 19.05mm Pipe) (20B) ........ 49 Figure 36: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Offshore 20.62mm Pipe) (20B) ........ 49 Figure 37: ILI Signal Comparison for Dent Located in Pipe Spool 3410 (20B) .............................................................. 50 Figure 38: ILI Signal Comparison for Dent Located in Pipe Spool 9570 (20B) .............................................................. 51 Figure 39: Location of the Features Selected for ILI Comparison (20B) ....................................................................... 55 Figure 40: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features Along the Pipeline (20C) ................................................ 61 Figure 41: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location (20C) ................ 61 Figure 42: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location and Distance along the Pipeline (20C) ............................................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 43: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Defect Depth (20C) .................................................................................................................................................................. 62 Figure 44: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Axial Length (20C)................................................................................................................................................................. 63 Figure 45: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Distance Along the Pipeline and Circumferential Length (20C) ....................................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 46: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features Along the Pipeline (20C) ................................................ 64 Figure 47: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location (20C) ................. 65 Figure 48: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location and Distance along the Pipeline (20C) ............................................................................................................................................... 65 Figure 49: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Defect Depth (20C) .................................................................................................................................................................. 66 Figure 50: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Axial Length (20C)................................................................................................................................................................. 67 Figure 51: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Distance Along the Pipeline and Circumferential Length (20C) ....................................................................................................................................... 67 Figure 52: Significance of the Metal Loss Features According to DNV-RP-F101 (Onshore 26.97mm Pipe) (20C) ........ 72 Figure 53: Significance of the Metal Loss Features According to Kastner (Onshore 26.97mm Pipe) (20C) ................. 73 Figure 54: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Onshore 26.97mm Pipe) (20C) ........ 74 Figure 55: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Onshore 19.05mm Pipe) (20C) ........ 74 Figure 56: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Offshore 19.05mm Pipe) (20C) ........ 75 Figure 57: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Offshore 20.62mm Pipe) (20C) ........ 75 Figure 58: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features Along the Pipeline (26A) ................................................ 85 Figure 59: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location (26A) ................ 85 Figure 60: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location and Distance along the Pipeline (26A)............................................................................................................................................... 86 Figure 61: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Defect Depth (26A) .................................................................................................................................................................. 86 Figure 62: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Axial Length (26A) ................................................................................................................................................................ 87 Figure 63: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Distance Along the Pipeline and Circumferential Length (26A) ....................................................................................................................................... 88 Figure 64: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Onshore 34.40mm Pipe) (26A) ........ 92 Figure 65: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Onshore 25.405mm Pipe) (26A) ...... 93 Figure 66: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Offshore 22.20mm Pipe) (26A) ........ 93 Figure 67: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Offshore 25.40mm Pipe) (26A) ........ 94

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 12 of 125

Figure 68: Location of the Features Selected for ILI Comparison (26A) ....................................................................... 96 Figure 69: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features Along the Pipeline (26B) .............................................. 102 Figure 70: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location (26B) .............. 102 Figure 71: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location and Distance along the Pipeline (26B) ............................................................................................................................................. 103 Figure 72: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Defect Depth (26B) ................................................................................................................................................................ 103 Figure 73: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Axial Length (26B) .............................................................................................................................................................. 104 Figure 74: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Distance Along the Pipeline and Circumferential Length (26B) ..................................................................................................................................... 105 Figure 75: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features Along the Pipeline (26B) .............................................. 106 Figure 76: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location (26B) ............... 106 Figure 77: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location and Distance along the Pipeline (26B) ............................................................................................................................................. 107 Figure 78: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Defect Depth (26B) ................................................................................................................................................................ 107 Figure 79: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Axial Length (26B) .............................................................................................................................................................. 108 Figure 80: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Distance Along the Pipeline and Circumferential Length (26B) ..................................................................................................................................... 109 Figure 81: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Onshore 34.40mm Pipe) (26B) ...... 113 Figure 82: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Offshore 22.20mm Pipe) (26B) ...... 114 Figure 83: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Offshore 25.40mm Pipe) (26B) ...... 114 Figure 84: ILI Signal Comparison for Dent Located in Pipe Spool 22210 (26B) .......................................................... 115 Figure 85: Location of the Features Selected for ILI Comparison (26B) ..................................................................... 119

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Growth Analysis (2012 to 2003) (20A) ........................................................................................................... 30 Table 2: Details of External Metal Loss Identified (20B) .............................................................................................. 34 Table 3: Details of Dents Identified (20B) .................................................................................................................... 42 Table 4: ILI Dent Comparison (2012 to 2003) (20B) ..................................................................................................... 53 Table 5: Growth Analysis (2012 to 2003) (20B) ........................................................................................................... 56 Table 6: Details of Internal Metal Loss Identified (20C) ............................................................................................... 60 Table 7: Details of Dents Identified (20C) .................................................................................................................... 68 Table 8: ILI Dent Comparison (2012 to 2003) (20C) ..................................................................................................... 77 Table 9: Growth Analysis (2012 to 2003) (20C) ........................................................................................................... 80 Table 10: Details of External Manufacturing Feature Identified (26A) ........................................................................ 84 Table 11: Growth Analysis (2012 to 2002) (26A) ......................................................................................................... 97 Table 12: Details of Dents Identified (26B) ................................................................................................................ 109 Table 13: ILI Dent Comparison (2012 to 2002) (26B) ................................................................................................. 117 Table 14: Growth Analysis (2012 to 2002) (26B) ....................................................................................................... 120

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 13 of 125

1. INTRODUCTION

The objective of this report is to determine the risks posed to the integrity of the 3 x 20 inch and 2 x 26 inch diameter 155km gas pipelines from Cap Bon (Tunisia) to Mazara Del Vallo (Sicily) operated by TMPC. PIMS of London were contracted[1] to review the available data and conduct assessments to determine the immediate and future integrity of these pipelines. Detailed information relating to the 5 pipelines was provided by TECMA S.r.l (TECMA)[2,3] which included:

ILI data: o 2012 MFL and Caliper inspections conducted by GE[4,5,6,7,8] o 2002-2003 MFL inspections conducted by GE[9,10,11,12,13]

Completed FFS Assessment Questionnaire The basic data relating to the pipelines are summarised in Appendix A. The route of the pipeline is shown schematically in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Route

Based on the supplied input data it was determined that the assessment would be divided into the following sections:

Assessment of the 2012 ILI data

Corrosion growth assessment between the 2002-3 and 2012 inspections

Future rehabilitation plan Conclusions and recommendations would be derived on the basis of the above assessments. This report is divided into individual sections relating to each pipeline, i.e.

Section 2 20A Line 2 Sud Section 3 20B Line 1 Nord Section 4 20C Line 1 Sud Section 5 26A Line 3 Sud Section 6 26B Line 4 Sud

Cap Bon

Mazara Del Vallo

Note: Not actual pipeline route (schematic only)

Tunisia

Sicily

Sardinia

Algeria

Italy

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 14 of 125

2. 20A - LINE 2 SUD

Line 2 Sud (20A) was inspected by GE in 2012 and 2003. The following sections describe the Fitness for Service (FFS) study conducted to determine the immediate and future integrity of the pipeline.

2.1 Findings of the 2012 Inspection

20A was inspected by GE in September 2012 with an MFL and Caliper inspection tools. The inspection identified:

0 external metal loss features

0 internal metal loss features

38 external manufacturing faults

198 internal manufacturing faults

0 dents

0 girth weld anomalies, and

0 ferrous metal objects The location and distribution of these features are described in Sections 2.1.1 to 2.1.7.

2.1.1 External Metal Loss Features

0 external metal loss features were detected by the inspection.

2.1.2 Internal Metal Loss Features

0 internal metal loss features were detected by the inspection.

2.1.3 External Manufacturing Features

38 external manufacturing features were detected by the inspection. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the reported external manufacturing features along the pipeline.

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 15 of 125

Figure 2: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features Along the Pipeline (20A)

Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the distribution of the reported external manufacturing features according to circumferential location. The distribution of manufacturing features in relation to the circumferential orientation appears to be concentrated in the bottom half of the pipe.

Figure 3: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location (20A)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

10

0

10

5

11

0

11

5

12

0

12

5

13

0

13

5

14

0

14

5

15

0

15

5

Nu

mb

er

of

Exte

rnal

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g Fe

atu

res

Distance Along Pipeline (km)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00

Nu

mb

er

of

Exte

rnal

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g Fe

atu

res

Circumferential Orientation (O'Clock)

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 16 of 125

Figure 4: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location and Distance along the Pipeline (20A)

Figure 5 shows the distribution of the reported external manufacturing features according to distance along the pipeline and defect depth.

Figure 5: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Defect Depth (20A)

00:00

01:00

02:00

03:00

04:00

05:00

06:00

07:00

08:00

09:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

0 5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

10

0

10

5

11

0

11

5

12

0

12

5

13

0

13

5

14

0

14

5

15

0

15

5

16

0

Cir

cum

fere

nti

al O

rie

nta

tio

n (

O'C

lock

)

Distance Along the Pipeline (km)

1020

3040

5060

7080

90100

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 51

01

52

02

53

03

54

04

55

0

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

10

0

10

5

11

0

11

5

12

0

12

5

13

0

13

5

14

0

14

5

15

0

15

5

De

pth

(%

wt)

Nu

mb

er

of

Exte

rnal

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g Fe

atu

res

Distance Along Pipeline (km)

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 17 of 125

The deepest external manufacturing feature reported was 23%wt located at 104.5m in the Cap Bon onshore section, Girth Weld Number 330. Figure 6 shows the distribution of the reported external manufacturing features according to distance along the pipeline and reported axial length. The longest external manufacturing feature reported was 199mm in Spool Number 18330 located offshore.

Figure 6: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Axial Length (20A)

Figure 7 shows the distribution of the reported external manufacturing features according to distance along the pipeline and circumferential length. The maximum circumferential length reported was 794 mm (50% of the pipeline circumference) located in Spool Number 18330. However, 92% of the reported features are less than 350mm in circumferential length.

5075

100150

200> 200

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 51

01

52

02

53

03

5

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

10

0

10

5

11

0

11

5

12

0

12

5

13

0

13

5

14

0

14

5

15

0

15

5

Axi

al L

en

gth

(m

m)

Nu

mb

er

of

Exte

rnal

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g Fe

atu

res

Distance Along Pipeline (km)

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 18 of 125

Figure 7: Distribution of External Manufacturing Features According to Distance Along the Pipeline and Circumferential Length (20A)

The external manufacturing features are typically shallow, short and narrow.

2.1.4 Internal Manufacturing Features

198 internal manufacturing features were detected by the inspection. Figure 8 shows the distribution of the reported external manufacturing features along the pipeline.

Figure 8: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features Along the Pipeline (20A)

5075

100150

200250

300350

400450

500600

700800

> 800

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 51

01

52

02

53

03

54

04

55

05

56

06

57

07

58

0

85

90

95

10

0

10

5

11

0

11

5

12

0

12

5

13

0

13

5

14

0

14

5

15

0

15

5

Cir

cum

fere

nti

al L

en

gth

(m

m)

Nu

mb

er

of

Exte

rnal

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g Fe

atu

res

Distance Along Pipeline (km)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

10

0

10

5

11

0

11

5

12

0

12

5

13

0

13

5

14

0

14

5

15

0

15

5

Nu

mb

er

of

Inte

rnal

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g Fe

atu

res

Distance Along Pipeline (km)

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 19 of 125

Figure 9 and Figure 10 show the distribution of the reported internal manufacturing features according to circumferential location. The distribution of manufacturing features in relation to the circumferential orientation appears to be random.

Figure 9: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location (20A)

Figure 10: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Circumferential Location and Distance along the Pipeline (20A)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00

Nu

mb

er

of

Inte

rnal

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g Fe

atu

res

Circumferential Orientation (O'Clock)

00:00

01:00

02:00

03:00

04:00

05:00

06:00

07:00

08:00

09:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

0 5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

10

0

10

5

11

0

11

5

12

0

12

5

13

0

13

5

14

0

14

5

15

0

15

5

16

0

Cir

cum

fere

nti

al O

rie

nta

tio

n (

O'C

lock

)

Distance Along the Pipeline (km)

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 20 of 125

Figure 11 shows the distribution of the reported internal manufacturing features according to distance along the pipeline and defect depth.

Figure 11: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Defect Depth (20A)

The deepest internal manufacturing feature reported was 27%wt in Spool Number 88320 located offshore. Figure 12 shows the distribution of the reported internal manufacturing features according to distance along the pipeline and reported axial length. The longest internal manufacturing feature reported was 132mm in Spool Number 18330 located offshore.

1020

3040

5060

7080

90100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 51

01

52

02

53

0

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

10

0

10

5

11

0

11

5

12

0

12

5

13

0

13

5

14

0

14

5

15

0

15

5

De

pth

(%

wt)

Nu

mb

er

of

Inte

rnal

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g Fe

atu

res

Distance Along Pipeline (km)

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 21 of 125

Figure 12: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Distance along the Pipeline and Axial Length (20A)

Figure 13 shows the distribution of the reported internal manufacturing features according to distance along the pipeline and circumferential length. The maximum circumferential length reported was 392 mm (25% of the pipeline circumference) located in Spool Number 130350 offshore. However, 93% of the reported features are less than 150mm in circumferential length.

Figure 13: Distribution of Internal Manufacturing Features According to Distance Along the Pipeline and Circumferential Length (20A)

5075

100150

> 150

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 51

01

5

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

10

0

10

5

11

0

11

5

12

0

12

5

13

0

13

5

14

0

14

5

15

0

15

5

Axi

al L

en

gth

(m

m)

Nu

mb

er

of

Inte

rnal

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g Fe

atu

res

Distance Along Pipeline (km)

5075

100150

200300

400> 400

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 51

01

52

02

53

0

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

10

0

10

5

11

0

11

5

12

0

12

5

13

0

13

5

14

0

14

5

15

0

15

5

Cir

cum

fere

nti

al L

en

gth

(m

m)

Nu

mb

er

of

Inte

rnal

Me

tal L

oss

Fe

atu

res

Distance Along Pipeline (km)

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 22 of 125

The internal manufacturing features are typically shallow, short and narrow.

2.1.5 Dents

0 dents were detected by the inspection.

2.1.6 Girth Weld Anomalies

0 Girth Weld Anomalies were detected by the inspection..

2.1.7 Ferrous Metal Objects

0 ferrous metal objects were detected by the inspection.

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 23 of 125

2.2 Immediate Integrity

The assessment of the immediate integrity of the pipeline is based on the data reported by the 2012 MFL,and Caliper inspections performed by GE.

2.2.1 Relevant Assessment Methods

2.2.1.1 Metal Loss Defects

Appendix B has highlighted that the most appropriate method for assessing the significance of any metal loss features in terms of their axial dimensions is DNV RP-F101 Part B[14]. Appendix B also highlights that the appropriate method for assessing the significance of metal loss features in terms of their circumferential length and through thickness depth is the Kastner[15] approach.

2.2.1.2 Manufacturing Defects

Appendix B has highlighted that the most appropriate method for assessing the significance of any mill / manufacturing defects in terms of their axial dimensions is the Shannon method[16].

2.2.2 Definition of Repair Criteria

2.2.2.1 Metal Loss Defects

Section 8.2 of DNV RP-F101 defines the safe working pressure to be:

[1] Where:

[2] [3] [4]

For metal loss defects located in the onshore section of the pipeline, the Design Factor is defined as follows:

[5] In the absence of any as-built drawings, at the Cap Bon (launch) end of the pipeline, the onshore section is defined in the inspection data as all pipe spools upstream of the first subsea anode located at 1627.5m, in spool 1600. Consequently, at the Mazara Del Vallo (receive) end of the pipeline, the onshore section is defined in the inspection data as all pipe spools downstream of the last subsea anode located at 155,239.6m in spool 131150. For metal loss defects located offshore, the Design Factor is defined as follows:

[6] On the above basis, the offshore section of the pipeline is defined in the inspection data as all pipe spools from 1600 to 131150.

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 24 of 125

Therefore:

[7] [8] [9] [10]

Consequently, metal loss defects require investigation at the MAOP of 210 bar at:

1.54 x 210 bar = 324.1 bar (for defects located offshore)

2.22 x 210 bar = 466.7 bar (for defects located onshore) However, the pipeline is constructed from 3 different wall thicknesses:

26.97mm located onshore at Cap Bon and Mazara Del Vallo

19.05mm located onshore at Cap Bon and Mazara Del Vallo and also offshore

20.62mm located offshore At the MAOP, 210 bar is equivalent to 63% SMYS in the 19.05mm wall pipe. If the Safety Factor of 2.22 is retained for assessing metal loss defects located the onshore sections of 19.05mm pipe, the metal loss defects would require investigation at a stress level of 63% SMYS x 2.22 = 139% SMYS. Therefore, for operation at the MAOP, metal loss defects located in the onshore sections of 19.05mm pipe will require investigation at a stress level of 100% SMYS. This results in a safety factor of (100/63) 1.59. To summarise, metal loss defects require investigation at the MAOP of 210 bar at:

2.22 x 210 bar for metal loss defects located onshore in 26.97mm pipe (98%SMYS)

1.59 x 210 bar for metal loss defects located onshore in 19.05mm pipe (100%SMYS)

1.54 x 210 bar for metal loss defects located offshore in 19.05mm (96%SMYS) or 20.62mm (89%SMYS) pipe

In addition, Section 8.2 of DNV RP-F101 also specifies that defect depths exceeding 85%wt are not accepted.

2.2.2.2 Manufacturing Defects

The philosophy which is generally accepted worldwide (and is codified in ANSI/ASME B31.G[17]) is that a pipeline is fit for operation at 72% SMYS (design factor = 0.72 for features located offshore) if the defects are limited to a size that would survive a pressure test at 100% SMYS, resulting in a safety factor of 1.39 (100/72). For defects which are subject to a design factor of 0.5 (i.e. located onshore), the corresponding safety factor is 2 (100/50). However, a similar issue faces this approach for manufacturing defects as has been described above for metal loss defects. Consequently, the manufacturing defects require investigation at the MAOP of 210 bar at:

2 x 210 bar for manufacturing defects located onshore in 26.97mm pipe (88%SMYS)

1.59 x 210 bar for manufacturing defects located onshore in 19.05mm pipe (100%SMYS)

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 25 of 125

1.39 x 210 bar for metal loss defects located offshore in 19.05mm (87%SMYS) or 20.62mm (80%SMYS) pipe

2.2.3 Sizing Tolerance

According to the inspection report, the sizing tolerance at a confidence level of 80% for the reported defects is:

For defects associated with the heat affected zone of welds:

o 12%wt for any defects characterised as general metal loss,

o 12%wt for any defects characterised as pitting,

o -16 to +12%wt for any defects characterised as axial grooves, and

o -12 to +16%wt for any defects characterised as circumferential grooves.

For defects located in the pipe body:

o 8%wt for any defects characterised as general metal loss,

o 8%wt for any defects characterised as pitting,

o -13 to +8%wt for any defects characterised as axial grooves, and

o -8 to +13%wt for any defects characterised as circumferential grooves.

The need for any sizing tolerance to be applied to the data will be assessed if any defects are determined to be close to failure. Therefore, for the purpose of the immediate integrity assessment, no additional sizing tolerance has been applied at this time.

2.2.4 Assessment of Metal Loss Defects (2012 ILI Data)

2.2.4.1 Assessment of the Metal Loss Features Axial Dimensions

As highlighted in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2, there were 0 external and 0 internal metal loss features reported in 2012.

2.2.4.2 Assessment of the Metal Loss Features Circ. Dimensions

As highlighted in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2, there were 0 external and 0 internal metal loss features reported in 2012.

2.2.5 Assessment of the Manufacturing Defects (2012 ILI Data)

As highlighted in Sections 2.1.3 and 2.1.4, there were a total of 38 external and 198 internal manufacturing defects reported in 2012. Figure 14 shows the Shannon assessment of the manufacturing defects (1 external) located onshore in 26.97mm pipe. Figure 15 shows the Shannon assessment of the manufacturing defects (1 internal) located onshore in 19.05mm pipe. Figure 16 shows the Shannon assessment of the manufacturing defects (31 external and 147 internal) located offshore in 19.05mm pipe.

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 26 of 125

Figure 17 shows the Shannon assessment of the manufacturing defects (6 external and 50 internal) located offshore in 20.62mm pipe.

Figure 14: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Onshore 26.97mm Pipe) (20A)

Figure 15: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Onshore 19.05mm Pipe) (20A)

MAOP (210 bar)44% SMYS

MAOP x 2(88% SMYS)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

De

pth

(%

wt)

Axial Length (mm)

EXT MFG Features (Launch)

MAOP (210 bar)63% SMYS

100% SMYS

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0

De

pth

(%

wt)

Axial Length (mm)

INT MFG Features (Receive)

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 27 of 125

Figure 16: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Offshore 19.05mm Pipe) (20A)

Figure 17: Significance of the Manufacturing Features According to Shannon (Offshore 20.62mm Pipe) (20A)

MAOP (210 bar)63% SMYS

MAOP x 1.39(87% SMYS)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

De

pth

(%

wt)

Axial Length (mm)

INT MFG Features

EXT MFG Features

MAOP (210 bar)58% SMYS

MAOP x 1.39(80% SMYS)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

De

pth

(%

wt)

Axial Length (mm)

EXT MFG Features

INT MFG Features

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 28 of 125

The assessment of the reported manufacturing features according to the Shannon method shows that all the reported manufacturing features are acceptable for operation at the MAOP of 210 bar at the time of the inspection (September 2012).

2.2.6 Assessment of Other Defects (2012 ILI Data)

2.2.6.1 Dents

As highlighted in Section 2.1.5, there were no dents detected by the inspection.

2.2.6.2 Girth Weld Anomalies

As highlighted in Section 2.1.6, there were no Girth Weld Anomalies detected by the inspection.

2.2.6.3 Ferrous Metal Objects

As highlighted in Section 2.1.7, there were no ferrous metal objects detected by the inspection.

2.2.7 Assessment of ROV Data

No ROV data was supplied at the time of compiling this study. Consequently, an assessment of the significance of any pipeline spanning that may have been identified offshore could not be done.

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 29 of 125

2.3 Growth Analysis

The 2012 inspection only identified manufacturing defects. Regardless, a comparison of the corresponding signals from both the 2003 and the 2012 inspections associated with the most severe defects reported in 2012 (> 15%wt) has been conducted to determine if any growth could be identified. Details of the comparisons conducted are provided in Appendix C and Table 1 at the end of this Section.

Figure 18: Location of the Features Selected for ILI Comparison (20A)

Appendix C provides details of the signal comparisons conducted for the reported manufacturing defects. It was concluded that there was no evidence of growth from any of the defects compared. In addition, a review of all the signals associated with both the Cap Bon and Mazara Del Vallo onshore sections has been conducted to determine if there is any evidence of external corrosion growth in these sections. This analysis provided no evidence of corrosion growth in the either onshore section of the pipeline. On the above basis, there does not appear to be any evidence of corrosion growth between 2003 and 2012.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

10

0

10

5

11

0

11

5

12

0

12

5

13

0

13

5

14

0

14

5

15

0

15

5

16

0

Pe

ak D

ep

th (

%w

t)

Absolute Distance (m)

Features selected for ILI comparison

2012 Reported Features

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 30 of 125

Table 1: Growth Analysis (2012 to 2003) (20A)

2012 2003

Girth Weld

Number

Absolute Distance (m)

Relative Distance

(m)

Orientation (O'Clock)

Spool Length

(m)

Wall Thickness

(mm)

Feature Type

INT / EXT

Onshore/ Offshore

Peak Depth (%wt)

Axial Length (mm)

Circ. Length (mm)

Qualitative Growth

Assessment Comment

Growth (%wt)

Girth Weld

Number

Absolute Distance

(m)

Relative Distance

(m)

Orientation (O'Clock)

Feature Type

INT / EXT

Peak Depth (%wt)

Axial Length (mm)

Circ. Length (mm)

330 104.5 9.3 12:30 10.0 26.97 MFG EST On 23 120 170 No Growth N/A 330 104.56 9.28 12:00 MFG EXT 23 114 62 32570 39,308.69 6.1 04:00 12.2 20.62 MFG INT Off 15 33 39 No Growth N/A 32570 39310.61 6.05 03:30 ML INT 15 35 37 60720 70,480.21 9.3 03:45 12.3 19.05 MFG EST Off 16 66 56 No Growth N/A 60720 70469.82 9.32 03:15 MFG EXT 17 68 53 60860 70,646.80 7.8 08:15 12.3 19.05 MFG INT Off 17 100 49 No Growth N/A 60860 70636.33 7.77 07:45 MFG INT 17 93 48

61030 70,846.11 1.9 02:45 12.1 19.05 MFG INT Off 16 42 28 No Growth N/A Not reported

61430 71,331.42 6.3 06:45 12.0 19.05 MFG EST Off 16 52 57 No Growth N/A 61430 71320.58 6.30 06:00 ML EXT 14 58 67 62030 72,050.55 3.1 03:15 12.3 19.05 MFG INT Off 18 66 34 No Growth N/A 62030 72039.33 3.12 02:30 MFG INT 18 60 28 63080 73,309.64 1.8 09:15 11.9 19.05 MFG INT Off 22 63 31 No Growth N/A 63080 73297.86 1.74 09:00 MFG INT 24 64 34 63080 73,313.09 5.2 09:15 11.9 19.05 MFG INT Off 18 61 37 No Growth N/A 63080 73301.31 5.19 08:45 MFG INT 18 75 35 63080 73,317.95 10.1 09:15 11.9 19.05 MFG INT Off 19 91 38 No Growth N/A 63080 73306.17 10.05 09:00 MFG INT 23 91 35 69190 80,665.54 9.6 10:30 12.1 19.05 MFG EST Off 22 48 33 No Growth N/A 69190 80652.26 9.63 10:00 MFG EXT 24 45 28 70220 81,900.87 4.3 03:30 12.0 19.05 MFG EST Off 16 108 23 No Growth N/A 70220 81887.77 4.35 02:45 MFG EXT 19 36 35

70220 81,906.89 10.3 03:15 12.0 19.05 MFG EST Off 19 78 10 No Growth N/A Not reported

72050 84,115.39 11.3 08:45 12.0 19.05 MFG EST Off 15 90 11 No Growth N/A 72050 84102.82 11.32 08:15 MFG EXT 15 73 5 72100 84,166.24 1.6 05:15 11.6 19.05 MFG EST Off 17 105 39 No Growth N/A 72100 84153.68 1.61 04:30 MFG EXT 19 108 37

72540 84,695.93 2.4 05:00 11.5 19.05 MFG EST Off 17 80 37 No Growth N/A Not reported

76800 89,807.05 6.5 12:45 12.2 19.05 MFG EST Off 16 78 66 No Growth N/A 76800 89796.99 6.50 12:30 MFG EXT 14 78 69 78030 91,295.39 11.6 08:15 12.4 19.05 MFG INT Off 17 61 34 No Growth N/A 78030 91286.22 11.60 07:45 MFG INT 16 83 29 79710 93,317.16 6.3 07:45 12.4 19.05 MFG EST Off 17 70 212 No Growth N/A 79710 93309.02 6.29 07:30 MFG EXT 14 60 78 80410 94,155.15 2.4 10:00 11.9 19.05 MFG INT Off 19 35 41 No Growth N/A 80410 94147.51 2.40 09:30 MFG INT 17 36 42 81840 95,873.33 1.9 12:15 11.7 19.05 MFG INT Off 19 57 39 No Growth N/A 81840 95866.72 1.88 11:45 MFG INT 18 88 21

82110 96,198.47 2.9 08:30 12.3 19.05 MFG EST Off 16 115 29 No Growth N/A Not reported

82110 96,204.99 9.4 09:00 12.3 19.05 MFG INT Off 17 54 33 No Growth N/A 82110 96198.54 9.39 08:45 MFG INT 18 59 38 85510 100,288.03 0.5 09:45 12.0 19.05 MFG INT Off 19 94 39 No Growth N/A 85510 100284.08 0.53 09:00 MFG INT 19 98 40 85800 100,646.03 10.4 07:30 12.0 19.05 MFG INT Off 18 74 45 No Growth N/A 85800 100642.32 10.39 07:00 MFG INT 19 71 45 86730 101,754.06 1.7 02:30 11.8 19.05 MFG INT Off 19 91 41 No Growth N/A 86730 101751.07 1.67 01:45 MFG INT 19 87 29 87060 102,151.16 1.2 09:30 12.2 19.05 MFG INT Off 18 66 34 No Growth N/A 87060 102148.40 1.21 09:00 MFG INT 19 70 34 87200 102,323.21 3.0 12:45 12.1 19.05 MFG INT Off 19 42 34 No Growth N/A 87200 102320.62 2.95 12:15 MFG INT 19 38 16

87260 102,403.17 11.0 03:45 11.9 19.05 MFG INT Off 16 67 24 No Growth N/A Not reported

87860 103,114.48 0.3 05:00 11.8 19.05 MFG INT Off 16 28 42 No Growth N/A 87860 103112.43 0.30 04:30 MFG INT 15 36 44 88320 103,673.33 5.8 11:45 12.2 19.05 MFG INT Off 27 52 36 No Growth N/A 88320 103671.63 5.79 11:15 MFG INT 19 50 41

131640 155,904.87 4.0 06:30 11.8 19.05 MFG INT On 16 52 46 No Growth N/A 131640 155906.66 3.99 05:45 MFG INT 19 62 44

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 31 of 125

2.4 Future Integrity and Re-inspection Interval

The future integrity of the pipeline is dependent on the rate of further corrosion growth. Section 2.3 has determined that there does not appear to be any evidence of corrosion growth between 2003 and 2012 either externally or internally. Therefore, the future re-inspection interval can be set to the maximum level allowed by international codes and standards. ASME B31.8S[18] recommends a maximum re-inspection interval of 10 years while the offshore design code DNV OS-F101[19] recommends that the re-assessment interval philosophy is reviewed every 5 to 10 years. Consequently, it is recommended that provided TMPC do not witness any degradation in their external corrosion prevention systems onshore via their routine above ground surveys (i.e. CIS, DCVG, etc.) and the pipeline continues to transmit dry gas, the re-inspection interval can be set to 10 years. If external corrosion in the onshore sections of pipe is suspected in the future, TMPC should reduce the re-inspection interval accordingly.

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 32 of 125

2.5 Conclusions

On the basis of the data and assessments described in this study, the main conclusions are: 1. There were no external metal loss defects, internal metal loss defects, dents, ferrous

metal objects or girth weld anomalies identified by the 2012 ILI.

2. The distribution of the 38 external and 198 internal manufacturing defects appears random both along and around the pipe and are typically shallow, short and narrow.

3. All the reported manufacturing features were acceptable for operation at the MAOP of 210 bar at the time of the inspection (September 2012).

4. A comprehensive review of the ILI signals between both the 2003 and 2012 inspections showed:

i) No evidence of growth between any of the manufacturing defects compared, and

ii) No evidence of change in the inspection signals between 2003 and 2012 in either the Cap Bon or Mazara Del Vallo onshore sections of pipe.

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 33 of 125

2.6 Recommendations

On the basis of the data, assessments and conclusions described in this study, the following recommendations are made: 1. Provided TMPC do not witness any degradation in their external corrosion prevention

systems onshore via their routine above ground surveys (i.e. CIS, DCVG, etc.) and the pipeline continues to transmit dry gas, the re-inspection interval can be set to 10 years.

2. If external corrosion in the onshore sections of pipe is suspected in the future, TMPC should reduce the re-inspection interval accordingly.

3. It would be advisable that any ROV data should reviewed to ensure that any free spans that may have been identified are acceptable.

4. Following any re-inspection, a further Fitness for Service assessment should be conducted to:

i) Confirm the integrity of the pipeline,

ii) Measure the rate of any corrosion growth, and

iii) Suggest a new re-inspection interval.

FFS Assessment of the TMPC 3x20 and 2x26 Gas Pipelines from Cap Bon to Mazara Del Vallo Page. 34 of 125

3. 20B - LINE 1 NORD

Line 1 Nord (20B) was inspected by GE in 2012 and 2003. The following sections describe the Fitness for Service (FFS) study conducted to determine the immediate and future integrity of the pipeline.

3.1 Findings of the 2012 Inspection

20B was inspected by GE in October 2012 with an MFL and Caliper inspection tools. The inspection identified:

3 external metal loss features

0 internal metal loss features

22 external manufacturing faults

372 internal manufacturing faults

2 dents

0 girth weld anomalies, and

0 ferrous metal objects The location and distribution of these features are described in Sections 3.1.1 to 3.1.7.

3.1.1 External Metal Loss Features

3 external metal loss features were detected by the inspection all within the 19.05mm section of onshore pipe at Cap Bon within pipe spool 460. Details of these features are provided below in Table 2.

Girth Weld

Number

Absolute Distance

(m)

Relative Distance

(m)

Orientation (O'Clock)

Spool Length

(m)

Wall Thickness

(mm)

Feature Type

INT / EXT

Onshore/ Offshore

Peak Depth (%wt)

Axial Length (mm)

Circ. Length (mm)

460 247.8 0.5 02:30 12.4 19.05 ML EST On 14 159 540 460 248.3 1.0 12:45 12.4 19.05 ML EST On 22 71 251 460 248.8 1.5 01:30 12.4 19.05 ML EST On 12 38 102

Table 2: Details of External Metal Loss Identified (20B)

3.1.2 Internal Metal Loss Features

0 internal metal loss features were detected by the inspection.

3.1.3 External Manufacturing Features