Proceedings of the ASME 2022 14th International Pipeline Conference

IPC2022
September 26-30, 2022, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2022-86892

PIG SWEEP®: NANOPARTICLES TRANSFORM PIPELINE

CLEANING & INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT

Justin Clapper George Williamson Kyle Pearson Bud Allred

Pearson Adair & Co. Integrity Emission Pearson Adair & Co. E&P Services Group
Frisco, TX Reduction Partners, LLC Frisco, TX Tyler, TX
Houston, TX

ABSTRACT 1. INTRODUCTION
This paper details the evolution of a new and innovative Oil, gas, and multi-phase pipelines can be fouled with
cleaning agent for heavy oil and natural gas pipelines. several types of deposits or internally restrictive debris (Figure
Information is offered regarding the reason for development and 1). The actual type of fouling is dependent upon several factors
the research involved in formulation of a nanotechnology including: the production fluid characteristics such as
product. Application details, economic and operational benefits hydrocarbon product, water, and gas composition; the presence
from case histories involved with cleaning two different and composition of common oilfield contaminants, such as
pipelines, and a preview of a recently developed laboratory hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, mercury, arsenic, zinc, lead,
testing program is presented. iron, and manganese, and operating conditions (e.g.,
Oil, gas, and multi-phase pipelines can be fouled with temperature, pressure, pH, flow regimes, etc.).
several types of deposits or internally restrictive debris.
Common types of foulants and the detrimental effects on pipeline
operation are reviewed. A nanotechnology product has shown to
be highly effective at removal of a wide variety of foulants. Pig
Sweep® provides a nanotechnology-based mechanical cleaning
mechanism as opposed to a chemical reaction. The cleaning
mechanism and model that potentially protects the pipe wall
surface from future deposition or debris collection is reviewed.
The case histories include on-line cleaning of two different
pipelines. The first resulted in the removal of more than 41,000
pounds of solids from a 344-mile long, 36” diameter, dry gas FIGURE 1. COMPARISON OF DEBRIS ON PIPELINE BOTTOM
pipeline system. The second case study was performed on a 63- VERSUS PIPE WALL DEPOSITS.
mile, 24” diameter, dry gas pipeline which resulted in reduced
pressure drop, significant operational savings from reduced Oil naturally contains paraffins, asphaltenes, and
compression requirements, and significant increased throughput. naphthenates. During transport these hydrocarbon components
Keywords: nanotechnology; flow assurance; integrity; can precipitate and adhere to the pipeline wall. At the wall these
corrosion; pipeline cleaning components can become associated with various iron oxides and
other scales including: FeO, Fe2O3, FeOH, FeS, FeS2, FeCO3,
CaCO3, CaSO4, and BaSO4 among others. Iron scales and
NOMENCLATURE oxides are typically oleophilic, meaning that they are
bscfd billion standard cubic feet per day preferentially oil wetting. This can result in complex mixtures
mmscfd million standard cubic feet per day of hydrocarbon and iron scale which increases both cleaning
psi pounds per square inch difficulty and production separation issues.
Many other potential problems and operational issues can be
caused by the foulants. The first and most obvious is that any

1 © 2022 by ASME
restriction in pipe cross sectional surface area represents a with disjoining pressure that can mechanically lift and release
potential flow assurance issue. It can increase back pressure, hydrocarbons and other contaminants [3]. The dispersion of
reduce flow, and raise energy costs associated with pumping or colloidal particles, when mixed with cleaning fluids, form
compression operations. Ultimately, in some situations flow orderly hexagonal arrays which act mechanically to exert a large
may be shut down completely if not correctly managed. spreading force [4]. The nanoparticles also surround
Deposits and restrictive debris can increase the potential for line hydrocarbon droplets and fragment them into smaller droplets
blockage during routine pigging operations. Solids in the [5]. Some nanoparticles may interact and remain on the pipe
pipeline system can also have adverse effects on sensors and wall, which provides protection against future fouling or debris
other equipment (e.g., compressors, valves, etc.). collection. Because nanoActiv® particles are designed to be
If present, water is often trapped beneath debris and under hydrophilic, returned particles are very small and show up in
deposits at the pipe wall surface. This can create stagnant water but not in hydrocarbons [6].
conditions that subject a pipeline to several different corrosion
mechanisms (e.g., Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion 2.1 Research and development
(“MIC”), acid gas corrosion, etc.). Foulants can also render Research and development for Pig Sweep® began in
corrosion inhibitors, biocides, and other pipeline specialty December 2016 with the goal of developing a solution to clean
chemicals ineffective by preventing them from reaching inner active pipeline while maintaining dew point specification and
pipe wall surfaces. returning the pipeline to dry condition. The research and
Pipeline cleaning strategies typically involve using utility development team suggested using colloidal nanoparticles as an
pigs. Pig selection is based upon historical operating active ingredient in the Pig Sweep® product. Nano technology
information and analysis of the production fluids plus any has been used for many years for downhole applications but had
contaminants. In the absence of specific data or with significant not been used in pipelines.
unknowns, progressive pigging programs are deployed. The first iterations of the product lacked the ability to dry
Specifically, pigs that are less aggressive at removal and within the specified timeframe and the consistency of the debris
transport of solid materials are deployed first, sequentially removed was not conducive to purging the pipeline. The
followed by more aggressive cleaning pigs. Operators have research and development team continued to make changes to
found that cleaning can be greatly enhanced by the application the parameters of the blend, eventually resulting in the proper
of solvents and other specialty chemicals in conjunction with drying time and improved consistency to allow complete
utility pigs. Most traditional specialty chemicals for pipeline removal of the debris during the cleaning process. The results of
cleaning are detergents (surfactants). These detergents tend to the optimized blend were dramatic and surpassed the
clean but do not have long lasting effects on surface modification expectations of both the pipeline company and the research team.
and on prevention of future fouling.
There are a substantial number of benefits from maintaining 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
a clean pipeline which include: The Pig Sweep® product has been field tested in a variety
 Increased throughput of different pipeline systems, including dry gas transmission
 Reduced back-pressure pipelines, natural gas gathering pipelines, and natural gas liquid
 Energy cost optimization (“NGL”) pipelines. In many cases, the product has been tested
 Improved pipeline integrity in applications where prior cleaning efforts did not achieve the
 Reduced costs associated with other equipment desired results. Below are descriptions of the systems, process,
maintenance and repair. and results from two of these case studies.

3.1 Case Study 1

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Case Study 1 involved a typical maintenance cleaning run
Pig Sweep® provides a nanotechnology-based mechanical
on multiple segments of a 36-inch nominal diameter, 344-mile
cleaning mechanism instead of a chemical reaction. Pig Sweep®
dry gas pipeline system. This system flows approximately 1
utilizes a patented nanoActiv® solution developed by Nissan
bscfd and supplies natural gas to four power plants as well as city
Chemical, who has been working on nanoparticle technology
taps. The operator of the pipeline had previously used a
since 1951. The technology deploys highly surface modified
traditional chemical mixture containing kelating agents. During
particles in a colloidal dispersion. The inorganic Pig Sweep®
this prior run, the dew point specification was exceeded causing
particles are manufactured in Texas and are engineered to range
a shutdown of a portion of the system. Using Pig Sweep®, the
in size from 12 to 15 nanometers [1]. The particles are
cleaning process was completed without any production loss and
comprised of silicon dioxide with a patent-pending special
the contract dew point specification was maintained throughout
surface coating [2]. In addition to pipeline applications, the
the process. The system was split into several different line
nanoActiv® technology may separately be used for enhanced oil
segments, and more than 41,000 pounds of solids were removed
recovery and completed well acid and fracture treatments.
from the segments cleaned with this product. Below is a detailed
The Pig Sweep® particles exhibit Brownian motion and
description of the process used to clean this system.
provide a diffusion driven mechanism that creates a wedge effect

2 © 2022 by ASME
 One particular segment of the system was an 84-mile followed by a more aggressive pig. In this scenario, the pigs
pipeline flowing an average of 800 mmscfd at roughly 750 psi were run at approximately five miles per hour.
resulting in gas velocities of approximately 18 miles per hour. This 63-mile pipeline was segregated into three
Due to contractual obligations, the flow rate could not be reduced approximately equivalent segments with a launcher and receiver
in order to run a cleaning pig at the normal speed of three to on each segment. The process described below was done on each
seven miles per hour. This meant that a speed control pig was segment. The first pig used was a foam disc pig in order to
the only option for this line. The Pig Sweep® cleaning product remove all free liquid and loose debris from the line segment.
PS-12G was used in conjunction with a speed control pig in a Separation equipment was again placed at the receiver to catch
“flush and brush” process. In this process, product is injected in all liquid and debris. For the second run, the PS-12G product
front of the pig and immediately removed instead of spreading was injected at the launcher and a second point halfway along
product with a spreader pig and removing the product and debris the segment, splitting the segment into two roughly equal sub-
with another more aggressive pig the next day. The speed control segments. The product was injected 30 to 45 minutes prior to
pig was set to run between five to seven miles per hour the pig being launched. For this run, a bullet-nosed foam pig
throughout the run. with spiral grooves was used to spread the product, allowing it
For the product injection, the 84-mile line segment was to be spread along the full inner circumference of the line
broken down into six equal lengths of approximately 14 miles segment maximizing the contact with solids allowing the
each. The injection quantity was based on a 5-mil (0.005”) coat nanoparticle process to take place.
of product using the pipe ID and the length in miles between each The third pig was a solid polyurethane cup disc pig equipped
injection point. It was determined that the injection would take with brushes and magnets and was launched 12 hours after
place 30 to 45 minutes prior to the pig being launched. The receiving the spreader pig. Liquids and debris were captured
injections at the remaining locations were also done 30 to 45 using separation equipment. This brush pig process was repeated
minutes prior to the pig’s arrival at that injection point. This several times until the line segment was deemed clean. This was
allows the PS-12G product time to be sprayed along the pipe wall determined by measuring the liquid and debris received after
using the gas flow. each run until no further liquids or debris were recovered.
Separation equipment was placed at the pig receiver site to After the system was restored back to normal operating
separate the liquid and debris which were then captured in Frac conditions, the pipeline showed a significant increase in capacity
tanks. The contents were measured after each run to determine as shown in Table 1 below.
the success of the cleaning run. The process above was repeated
three additional times until it was determined that the line was Flow Rate Avg. Pressure Incremental
clean. Reduced amounts of PS-12G were used on additional (mmscfd) (psi) Compression
runs. (HP)
A total of more than 17,000 lbs of solids were removed from Before Pig
this specific segment and more than 41,000 lbs were removed 260 850 12,000
from the system overall through the cleaning process. This was Sweep ®
significantly more than had been removed in the prior year’s run After Pig
320 744 0
while using approximately a third of the volume of chemical.
The line remained under the contract dew point specification
Sweep ®
throughout the process and no production was lost or curtailed. TABLE 1: OPERATING CONDITIONS BEFORE AND AFTER
This cleaning run also led to a 75% year over year reduction in CLEANING PROCEDURE
solids removal on the system.
The operator was able to shut down two compressors while
3.2 Case Study 2 increasing flow rate due to the increased pipeline efficiency post-
Case Study 2 was a maintenance cleaning run on a 24-inch cleaning. The compressors have been shut down for 18 months
nominal diameter, 63-mile dry gas pipeline flowing 260 mmscfd following the cleaning, leading to a reduction in fuel and
at approximately 850 psi. Prior cleaning runs had been operating costs of approximately $13,000,000. The more than
performed using brush pigs and occasionally diesel fuel, without 20% increase in throughput resulted in an increase in revenue of
the use of cleaning chemicals. Following these runs, there was approximately $40 million, leading to a combined impact of
no appreciable improvement in operating conditions. Prior to the more than $50 million.
Pig Sweep® cleaning run, this pipeline required two additional
Caterpillar 3616 compressors during normal operation to achieve 3.3 Laboratory testing
a flow rate of 260 mmscfd. The gas control on this system The typical properties required for a typical pipeline
allowed for the reduction of flow and therefore velocity during chemical or cleaner solution are: wetting, solubilization,
the process. This allowed traditional pigs to be moved at the emulsification, dispersion, and detergency.
desired speed for cleaning of three to seven miles per hour. This These properties are directly applicable to surfactant
also allowed for the PS-12G to be spread using a spreader pig (surface active) and solvent type chemicals but some of them are
generically applicable to other products regardless of the

3 © 2022 by ASME
cleaning mechanism. Testing of pipeline cleaning agents is
customized based on situational conditions and there are
currently no test methods to define industry accepted standards.
In most cases, customized testing procedures are developed by
in-house production chemistry labs, by large chemical providers,
or in collaboration with external specialty labs.
There are some standardized ASTM tests [7,8] primarily
designed for application to pharmaceutical, medical, and oxygen
manufacturing facilities. These ASTM tests are specifically
designed to evaluate the effectiveness of cleaning agents. They
provide guidance on how to visually evaluate coupons, calculate
a Cleaning Effectiveness Factor (CEF), and a Residual
Contamination (Rc) value. This yields both qualitative and
quantitative data. Although these tests and others are not
specifically designed for pipeline applications, some of the
definitions, basic principles, and procedural sections were
FIGURE 3. ILLUSTRATION OF STANDARD COUPON SIZE
incorporated into a testing program for the evaluation of Pig
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH ASTM 121-98.
Sweep® as a pipeline cleaner [7,8]. Other ASTM tests were
A second type of test is a Vertical Absorption Test (VAT)
evaluated for potential inclusion into the ongoing and future
(Figure 4), which is used to evaluate a cleaning agent’s ability to
testing programs [9,10,11].
penetrate a contaminant.
Three basic types of tests were considered for further
product evaluation. The first is a basic coupon immersion test
(Figures 2 and 3). In this test, contaminated coupons are
immersed in the cleaning agent and evaluated afterwards for
removal efficiency.

FIGURE 4. ILLUSTRATION OF LABORATORY BENCHTOP

SET-UP FOR VERTICAL ABSORPTION TEST.

A third type of test is used to evaluate suspension effects that

relate directly to a cleaning product’s effectiveness at mass
transporting debris along a pipeline or out of a system (Figures 5
and 6). After vigorous mixing to simulate turbulence, the settling
time of particles is measured. The lower the settling rate, then
the better the suspension.

FIGURE 2. LABORATORY BENCHTOP SET-UP FOR COUPON

IMMERSION TEST.
FIGURE 5. ILLUSTRATION OF PARTICLE SUSPENSION AND
SETTLING.

4 © 2022 by ASME
 4. CONCLUSION
Conventional chemicals have had limits to their
effectiveness in certain pipeline applications. The use of
nanoparticles in pipeline cleaning could change the future of
pipeline cleaning. The technology has produced promising
results in field testing and case studies to date. There is limited
laboratory data and few methods available for evaluating
nanotechnology, particularly in this application.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
E&P Services Group
IERP LLC
Assured Flow Solutions

FIGURE 6. PHOTOGRAPH OF BATCH SETTLING COLUMN AT REFERENCES

DIFFERENT TIMES. [1] By comparison, a sheet of paper is about 100,000
nanometers thick, and a strand of DNA is 2.5 nanometers wide.
Final testing procedures have been developed and [2] www.nanoactiv.com/resources/faqs.
laboratory tests are currently underway. These tests will be used [3] Wasan and Nikolov, Nature, Volume 423, 2003.
to optimize Pig Sweep® solvent formulation and concentration [4] www.nanoactiv.com.
for the nanotechnology delivery packages. Additional value will [5] www.nanoactiv.com.
be gained by evaluating cleaning process variables such as [6] www.nanoactiv.com/resources/faqs.
contact time, temperature, agitation, and developing optimal [7] ASTM G122−20 Standard Test Method for Evaluating
cleaning processes. the Effectiveness of Cleaning Agents and Processes, ASTM
The testing program included the collection of pigging [8] G121-98 Practice for Preparation of Contaminated Test
debris for utilization in the laboratory. Inorganic and organic Coupons for the Evaluation of Cleaning Agents, ASTM E3106
debris composition was determined using special analytical" Guide for Science-Based and Risk-Based Cleaning Process
techniques. These included Energy Dispersive X-Ray (“EDX”) Development and Validation.
analysis, X-ray Diffraction Analysis (“XRD”), and organic [9] ASTM E2834-12 (2018) Standard Guide for
ignition tests. Additionally, for complete characterization of the Measurement of Particle Size Distribution of Nanomaterials in
testing parameters, full compositional analyses of the pipeline Suspension by Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis (NTA)
production fluids were obtained, including natural gas, crude oil, [10] ASTM E2490 09 (2021) Standard Guide for
condensate, and water. Measurement of Particle Size Distribution of Nanomaterials in
Tests like these have historically been used to evaluate Suspension by Photon Correlation Spectroscopy (PCS)
conventional cleaning products such as chemical [11] ASTM E3247 20 Standard Test Method for Measuring
surfactants. They may not account for key variables related to the Size of Nanoparticles in Aqueous Media Using Dynamic
nanotechnology product mechanisms (e.g., pressure, Brownian Light Scattering.
motion, etc.). The ongoing test program will include
benchmarking against conventional products and other advanced
surface tests.

5 © 2022 by ASME