Field Testing Inorganic Zinc

Silicates
by Alex Szokolik, A&A Szokolik Consulting Pty Ltd

Photographs courtesy of A&A Szokolik Consulting

This article is intended to be a sequel to “Evaluating Single-Coat, Inorganic

Zinc Silicates for Oil and Gas Production Facilities in Marine
Environments,” which appeared in the March 1992 issue of JPCL.1 It is
therefore suggested that the present article be read in conjunction with the
original article. For the reader’s convenience, however, the 1992 article is
summarized here.

When the technology of high ratio inorganic zinc alkali silicates (HRZ
coatings), arrived on the Australian protective coatings scene in 1990, a
study was undertaken to determine the suitability of single-coat HRZ
systems for protecting oil and gas production facilities in marine
environments.

The idea of replacing the multi-coat systems used for protecting marine
structures originated in the Gulf of Mexico. Several offshore platforms had
been refurbished with 1 coat of an HRZ applied to a dry film thickness (dft)
of 150-200 microns (6-8 mils). The 1990 study described the testing of 23
coatings and systems from 5 major coating suppliers. The coatings
consisted of 11 single-coat inorganic zincs (5 HRZs with 2 different dfts, 2
conventional alkali zinc silicates, and 2 alkyl silicate zincs), and 12 multi-
coat systems (all having an inorganic zinc silicate primer). The study
included 5,000 hours of laboratory testing, application trials, and large-
scale field evaluation. The results showed that single-coat inorganic zinc
silicates clearly outperform multi-coat systems. As a consequence, single-
coat HRZ systems were adopted for protecting all marine- and land-based
oil and gas production facilities of the company where the author worked
at the time. This use encompassed both new construction and maintenance
applications.

The following issues were not completely resolved during the relatively
short period of the original study.

• The influence of varying conditions (temperature, humidity, time of day,

season) on application techniques and curing behavior
• The development of a reliable field method for determining water
insolubility
• The role of early hardness in terms of cure and performance
• Determination of a criterion for acceptance for early hardness as distinct
from ultimate hardness
• Determination of the optimum dft for long-term protection and problem-
free application

These issues were left to be resolved with the aid of practical experience
gained from more extensive and varied field applications over a longer
period.

Objective

The original study1,2 identified the following areas where single-coat HRZ
systems could be expected to perform better than other types of inorganic
zincs or multi-coat systems.

Technical

• Fast cure and water resistance in 2 hours

• Exceptional hardness in 2 hours
• Excellent mudcracking resistance, even at 150-200 microns (6-8 mils)
• Ability to recoat without time limit
• Excellent performance in marine environments

Economics

• Single-coat application, significantly lower material and labor

requirements
• Less maintenance and fewer repairs required because of less construction
damage and better performance
• Significant increase in maintenance capacity, simpler procedures

Safety

• Water-borne materials to reduce health and safety hazards.

The objective of the present article is to review the HRZ systems for their
technical performance, economics, and safety by examining all aspects of
their practical use on many projects during the past 5 years. The
examination results will indicate the degree to which the single-coat HRZ
systems fulfilled the expectations generated by the initial study. The article
will also review the extent to which issues unresolved in the original study
have now been resolved.

Assessment

Materials

This review is limited to the 5 HRZ coatings examined in the original

study1 and will use the same notation used in the original study to identify
each product, i.e., A1, B1, C1 (C3), D1, and E1. The following changes
occurred to this list during the review period and on projects with which
the author was associated.

Product C1 was used on 90 percent of all work during the first 2 years
because most of the other products were still being adjusted to improve
their application characteristics. Unfortunately, C1 suffered sudden and
recurring spot rusting in 1992 (discussed later in the article). It was
replaced with a sister product, C3, which was submitted for testing in the
original study1 as a conventional zinc alkali silicate. Later, the manufacturer
claimed that the only difference between products C1 and C3 was the
metallic zinc content in the dry film. C1 contained 76 percent metallic zinc
by weight, while C3 contained more than 85 percent. It is interesting to
note that despite the difference in zinc loading, C1 performed as well as C3
in the initial laboratory testing program.

Applicators stopped using products A1 and D1 in the early stages of the

review period, when their manufacturers were not able or willing to
improve unacceptable early water resistance and inadequate film building
properties. Thus, most of the findings of this review have been generated
by application experiences with the B1, C1/C3, and E1 coatings.

Application Conditions—Case Histories

The drying and curing of water-borne inorganic zincs during the

application and curing period are influenced by ambient conditions,
especially temperature and humidity.

Although the HRZ coatings were said to rapidly cure and become water
resistant, they cured and dried erratically in the early stages of the review
period. Consequently, it was decided that continued monitoring of their
reaction to a variety of ambient conditions was essential. This monitoring
would allow the confirmation of the claimed characteristics in practical
terms. It is, therefore, important to know the ambient weather conditions
that apply to each locality where these coatings were applied.

The case histories studied in this article are condensed in Table 1. All were
along the eastern and southeastern seaboard of Australia. Summer
temperatures ranged from 12 to 33 C (54 to 91 F), and relative humidity
ranged from 50 to 90 percent. Rainfall at L1, L3, L4, and L5 was between
40 and 125 mm (1.6 to 5 in.). Winter temperatures ranged from 6 to 25 C
(43 to 77 F); relative humidity ranged from 45 to 90 percent; and rainfall at
L1, L3, L4, and L5 ranged from 40 to 120 mm (1.6 to 4.8 in.). There was
no rainfall at L2.

Assessment Process

The process for assessing the application and corrosion protection

characteristics of the HRZ coatings included the following.

• Observation of applications, followed by measurements for hardness, dft,

and resistance to water, as well as a visual check for coating defects
• Evaluation of results from application trials and laboratory tests
• Review of inspector’s reports and project records
• Interviews with facility owners, application contractors, and coating
manufacturers

Test Methods

The following is a brief description of the assessment process test methods.

• Hardness—Hardness was measured with a scratch hardness testing

instrument, which has a spring-loaded needle that is drawn over the
coating’s surface. The hardness of the coating is equal to the minimum
(spring) force required to mark the surface, as indicated by a barely
discernible deposit of zinc dust at the end of a 25-millimeter (one-inch)
scratch line. The force is measured on a scale of 0 to 2,000 points (P). For
those not familiar with these hardness values, the following correlation
should be helpful: 750 P approximates H on ASTM D 3363-74 Film
Hardness by Pencil Test and 1,500 P is about 5H on the pencil hardness
test.
• DFT—Dry film thickness was measured with an electronic instrument
with the capability of storing a large number of readings. It provides
minimum, maximum, and average values as well as the number of readings.
• Water Solubility (Cure) Tests—Three tests were used to determine the
water solubility of the coatings.

Rub Test (Australian Standard 3894.4-1993, Method C): The surface of

the coating is rubbed with a clean cloth that is saturated with water. A
force not greater than 2 kg (4 lbs) is applied. Ten double strokes (i.e., 10
complete oscillations) are applied. The cloth is then examined for deposits
or discoloration, and the appearance of the surface is checked for any loss
of coating. Any discoloration or deposit on the cloth or any loss of coating
film indicates water solubility.

Modified Rub Test: The procedures and evaluation methods are similar to
the rub test but feature the following modifications. A water-saturated rag
is placed onto, and left in contact with, the coating surface. Immediately
after the rag is removed, an X-cut is made in the wet coating to the
substrate. Sixty double rubs are applied with a wet rag across the X-cut.
Zero removal of coating signifies cure.

Sponge Test: A water-saturated sponge is placed on the surface and left

there for 2 hours. Upon removal of the sponge, the coating is examined for
lifting, blistering, and cracking. If there is no apparent deterioration of the
film, 50 double rubs are applied with a wet rag. No lifting or removal of
coating signifies water resistance and cure.
Findings and Observations

Performance in Service

The performance of HRZ was assessed at 2 offshore platforms, 1 onshore

oil and gas plant, and a wood chip loading marine terminal. The HRZ
coatings gave excellent performance; detailed comments follow.

Offshore Platform

Two platforms were visited in September 1994 to evaluate the performance

of the original applications in early 1990 as well as more recent
applications.

Platform 1 was used to test HRZ (mostly C1) in 1990 on a large scale in 1
maintenance painting program. The following findings are worth noting.

• The column coated in early 1990 and used for the original assessment
was re-examined. The coating was extremely hard, well over 2,000 P,
making it difficult to scribe the X-cuts for checking the bond, which was
also excellent.
• More than 200 dft readings were taken. The minimum dft was 149
microns (6 mils); the maximum dft was 385 microns (15.4 mils); the
average dft was 265 microns (10.6 mils). Even with such high thicknesses,
the coating film was solid through to the substrate. There was no rust
spreading from the marks of the original adhesion tests (Fig. 2).
• Pinhole rusting and very low thickness areas noted in the 1990
assessment have not changed during the past 5 years.
• Spoolwork coated onshore before installation during the past 1 to 4 years
showed obvious construction and handling damage that had not been
repaired. No rusting had occurred, however. For example, score marks that
are 10 mm (0.4 in.) wide and 1 m (39 in.) long were in good condition.
• In contrast to multi-coat systems, there was a notable absence of coating
breakdown on edges and sharp corners of structural steel.
• Hot wellheads, coated in situ, were in excellent condition, even though
they are regularly subjected to salt water wash.
• In general, the single-coat HRZ coating on this platform was found to be
in nearly perfect condition after 5 years’ service. It looked significantly
better than the multi-coat systems (predominately ethyl zinc silicate
primers), which were rusting at every site of topcoat damage.
• No area of coating was found with a hardness of less than 2,000 P.

HRZ coatings formed the principal systems used in maintenance painting

programs on Platform 2 since 1992. The following observations were
noted.

• Examination of the large booster skid, situated on the top deck, produced
the results shown in Table 2. The booster skid had been in service for
approximately 2 years.
• Freshly coated spoolwork that was just received from the onshore
application yard and not yet installed exhibited handling damage. The
damage from steel ropes was limited to burnishing of the surface. No
rusting was apparent. Coating hardness was measured at 1,000-1,500 P.
• Recently installed spoolwork, coated with B1, had suffered minor
scratches and impact damage. No rusting was apparent. Minimum dft was
139 microns (5.5 mils); maximum dft was 370 microns (15 mils); and
average dft was 212 microns (8.5 mils).
• Hardness was found to be 1,000 P on new work and greater than 2,000 P
on old work.
• Decking and chequer plate, or diamond deck, (Fig. 1) were 2 years old
and were coated with C3. The coating was in excellent condition, with no
apparent rust. C3 seemed to be greatly outperforming the adjacent multi-
coat systems (solvent borne ethyl zinc silicate, epoxy, and polyurethane).
There was no spalling from the tops of the chequers, the principal mode of
breakdown that characterized the adjacent multi-coat systems.
• In general, all HRZ applications were in excellent condition. There were
no signs of rusting on edges, sharp corners, or areas where handling
damage occurred.

Onshore Facilities

All structural and process equipment at the gas treatment plant were coated
with a single-coat ethyl zinc silicate in 1979. The dft of the coating ranged
from 75 to 125 microns (3 to 5 mils). Since this project was part of the
original study, it was thought to be of interest and appropriate to reassess
the performance of the coating, now in service for 15 years, even though it
is not an HRZ coating. Table 3 shows the results of the examination.

All coating breakdown appeared to be attributable either to physical

damage or holidays and low dft. The excellent performance and the very
low rate of rusting after such a long service period are noteworthy,
particularly since the single-coat application used solvent-borne alkyl zinc.

Although the HRZ systems have been in service for just under 2 years in
the wood chip loading marine terminal, it was thought that an early
assessment would provide an indication of the likely superior long-term
performance. (This reasoning was based on the fact that HRZ films
exposed offshore since 1990 had not shown any deterioration, such as
changes in pinhole rusting, low thickness areas, or undercutting at the
scribe in 4 years.) Products E1 and B1 were used side by side on this
project. No difference in performance was seen at this stage between the
coatings.

The survey identified marked variations in the dfts of both products, with
an average thickness about 100 microns (4 mils) greater than specification.
These data suggest that application techniques could have been improved.
All coatings were found to be very hard. Mudcracking was insignificant.
There was no trace of rusting, not even in the 20-millimeter (0.8-inch) gap
formed by back-to-back structural angles, where the coating was difficult
to apply Overall, the facility was found to be in excellent condition.
Application, Drying, and Curing Characteristics

HRZ coating behavior is assessed in terms of application, drying, and

curing characteristics observed during the review period.

Film Building Properties

These coatings have exhibited an ability to be applied to higher dfts than

was normally expected from water-borne inorganic zinc silicates. Higher
thicknesses in conventional inorganic zinc coatings are limited by
mudcracking. In contrast, dfts of more than 200 microns (8 mils) are easily
achieved with some HRZ coatings without mudcracking. On the first
offshore application, dfts in excess of 500 microns (20 mils) were achieved
with C1. D1, however, was unable to be applied to thicknesses much in
excess of 100 microns (4 mils). Its use was curtailed during the first year of
the assessment period, owing to the problems caused by mudcracking and
erratic curing behavior. While E1 could be applied to the required dft of
150-200 microns (6-8 mils), it needed nearly twice the number of passes to
do so, in comparison with B1 and C1.

Cure and Water Resistance

The time required to achieve water insolubility (shower resistance) during

the initial curing period has been the biggest source of problems with some
of the HRZ coatings (i.e., A1 and E1) during the past 5 years.

High dft (greater than 150 microns [6 mils]), low ambient temperatures
(less than 18 C [64 F]), and high relative humidity (85 percent) were the
factors found to reduce the coating’s ability to achieve early water
insolubility. The effect of this influence was severe on E1, significant on
A1, and moderate on B1 and C3.

The effect of poor application conditions, however, could be mitigated by

changing application techniques. For example, applying the system in 2
coats, with a few minutes’ drying time between coats to allow the bulk of
the water to flash off, greatly enhanced the rapid drying of the entire film.

Exposing the coatings to moisture before water insolubility was attained

usually produced the following problems.

• Low initial hardness or reduction of high initial hardness (B1 and C3)
• Severe mudcracking accompanied by severe blistering and lifting, in most
cases leaving the surface bright and clean (D1 and E1)
• Washing off when exposed to rain (A1)

All HRZ coatings exhibited hardness variations when exposed to moisture

(i.e., dew or rain) early in their curing cycle. In some instances, loss of
hardness was limited to the outer layer of the film. Even though the
hardness of these films was affected by moisture, in some instances they
still seemed to become resistant to rain.
Conditions that appear to effect hardness occur more in the winter months
when ambient conditions are characterized by low temperatures, high
humidities, dew, rain, and lack of air movement (wind) at all onshore
locations.

The problem of the hardness variation was negligible in the case of B1 and
C3 because both appeared to develop rapid water insolubility (when tested
by either of the test methods described earlier). Typically, the time required
to achieve water insolubility was attained within the periods shown in Table
4.

The fact that E1 requires much more time to achieve insolubility than B1
and C3 require raises a number of questions. Why was E1 repeatedly used
on projects spanning a five-year period, given its poor water resistance
properties? Is E1 a true HRZ? The answers may be revealed by examining
the history of E1 during the review period.

E1 usually fails by cracking, blistering, and peeling (Fig. 3) when exposed

to rain or heavy condensation before attaining initial cure. Its curing
behavior has always been erratic and unpredictable, e.g., attaining
insolubility any time between 24 hours and 7 days, despite the ambient
conditions being well within the manufacturer’s recommended application
parameters. Its ability to achieve insolubility appeared to be affected to a
significantly higher degree by excessive dft (greater than 150 microns [6
mils]) and lower ambient temperatures (less than 20 C [68 F]), than is the
case with the other HRZ coatings.

Normally, E1 achieved rapid initial hardness and apparent water resistance

when tested with the rub and the modified rub tests. When exposed to rain,
however, it often failed by cracking, blistering, and disbonding from the
surface. Consequently, the more severe sponge test for insolubility had to
be developed and used.

The history of E1’s use is detailed in Table 5.

The use of A1 was discontinued in early 1992, even though it was easy to
apply and to achieve the required dft without any mudcracking. The
material lost favor with contractors because it was very slow to reach
water resistance, and, when exposed to rain, it often washed off.

The many and varied applications under a variety of conditions during the
past 5 years have led to the development of 2 products, B1 and C3. These
products appear to be free from the problems with curing, water
insolubility, and film build that have been associated with products A1, E1,
and D1.

Researchers have postulated (without verifying evidence) that products

based on a mixture of alkali metal silicates (e.g., potassium, sodium, and, in
particular, lithium) are able to achieve water insolubility much faster than
those based on a single alkali metal silicate, notably, potassium.
Hardness

The original study showed that the degree of hardness of HRZ coatings
cannot be used as a measure of the degree of cure when film thicknesses
are in excess of 75 microns (3 mils). As shown in the preceding section,
HRZ films giving high ranging hardness values could be affected by water
in several ways and to varying degrees.

There is also a variation in the rates at which different proprietary products

achieve hardness. This variation can then be accentuated by the prevailing
drying conditions.

Inexperienced contractors or coating inspectors have a difficult time

dealing with the fact that an extremely hard coating can be uncured and
water soluble. This incongruity is especially troublesome in view of the
requirement in current specifications for hardness greater than 750 P,
regardless of whether the coating has reached water insolubility.

According to the manufacturers of HRZ coatings, early hardness is an

unimportant property for performance because these coatings continue to
harden in service. This claim seems to be supported by the evidence
accumulated over the past 5 years. No coatings older than 6 months had a
hardness lower than 2,000 P.

Because of the insignificance of early hardness and because there is such a

tendency to confuse hardness with cure, the manufacturers advocate that
the acceptance criterion for early hardness should not be more than 350 P.
This degree of hardness would still allow fast handling of coated work
without substantial damage and costly repairs. This claim is also supported
by field experience, which shows that 350 P is, in fact, sufficient to provide
the required resistance to handling.

Mudcracking

To date, HRZ coatings have been applied under widely ranging conditions
and by applicators whose experience is also greatly varied. Yet, of the 5
products that have been extensively used, products B1, C1, and C2 have
suffered very little mudcracking. Careful application techniques can
overcome mudcracking, which tends to occur in corners and over welds.

Criteria for accepting or rejecting mudcracking are still subject to dispute.

Currently, coatings with cracking (other than hairline) that is barely visible
to the naked eye are removed by abrasive blasting and replaced. Otherwise,
a stripe coat of HRZ is applied to hairline mudcracking.

Recoating

Field experience shows that any coating that has attained water insolubility
can be recoated with itself. There has been no evidence of any delamination
between coats.
Interviews

Representatives of application contractors and operators of offshore

platforms and the marine loading facility were interviewed regarding the
use of HRZ coatings. The most salient elements of these interviews can be
summarized as follows.

Maintenance Painting

• The use of HRZ coatings has substantially reduced costs per year.
• Procedures are significantly simpler, easier, and faster.
• Maintainable areas have measurably increased per unit time.
• Damage incurred during handling and construction has been much
reduced.
• Offshore ambient conditions (i.e., even temperatures, constant humidity,
and breeze) are more conducive to HRZ application than the more variable
onshore conditions.
• While coating inside a containment structure created seemingly poor
drying and curing conditions for product E1, it also allowed application to
continue under a range of adverse weather conditions.
• The stay per location for erected scaffolding was reduced by one-third
compared to scaffolding needs for multi-coat systems.
• No significant application or curing problems occurred offshore during 5
years of applications. (This statement does not apply to product A1, which
had curing problems as described above and was never actually applied
offshore; it was only applied onshore to various items that were then
shipped offshore. The statements also does not apply to products D1 and
E1. They were tried offshore; but their use was quickly discontinued
because of inadequate film building and unacceptable early water
resistance, respectively. The technology appears to be somewhat product
sensitive.)
• The non-reflective gray color of HRZ can create a lighting problem. One
operator had to increase lighting in some plant areas as a result of adopting
this system.

Shop and Yard Application

According to shop and yard contractors, single-coat HRZ systems have

significant advantages over the multi-coat systems.

• No application or curing problems occurred with products B1 and C3

during the last 21/2 years.
• To promote rapid cure and to achieve an even thickness, applicators
advocate a procedure in which a thin film is applied first. The 40- to 60-
micron (1.5- to 2.5-mil) film is allowed to flash off before the film is built
to the required dft of 150 microns (6 mils).
• Contractors noted a rapid turnaround of shop work (less than 24 hours)
because the HRZ system required less handling than multi-coat systems.
Handling was fast and easy due to the excellent damage resistance of the
coating.
• Cost savings were produced by the substantial (30 percent) reduction in
labor and material requirements per unit area and by the reduction in the
inventory of coating materials compared to multi-coat systems.
• The health and safety risks to operators were greatly reduced Respiratory
complaints were reduced, and no fire or explosion hazards existed.
Equipment was cleaned with water.

General Comments

Facility owners who have used the single-coat HRZ system expressed
satisfaction with it and had no intention of returning to the use of multi-
coat systems. They did say, however, that to avoid some application
pitfalls, prospective first-time users need to take care in selecting the HRZ
coating and the application contractor. They advocate contacting facility
owners who have used the HRZ systems.

Application contractors experienced in the use of the single-coat HRZ

systems similarly expressed positive views on the side of such systems. In
fact, they are promoting its use wherever possible. According to one
contractor, the single-coat HRZ system allows him to provide quality work
and good service by fast completion of work at a very competitive price.

Despite the performance and cost advantages offered by the single-coat

HRZ systems, there has been no significant increase in the number of users
during the past 5 years. Three factors contribute to this lack of growth.
First, a lack of confidence in HRZ systems has been generated by the
reported application difficulties. Second, prospective specifiers and end
users are not aware of the system and its expressed advantages. Third,
manufacturers of HRZ systems have not only failed to promote, but also
have failed to even reveal the existence of, such systems (let alone their
advantages) to prospective specifiers and end users.

Spot Rusting Problem

In early 1992, some substantial structures in location L1 were coated with

product C1. The coating developed extensive spot rusting (pinhole rusting)
any time within a few days to a few months after application. There was no
particular pattern to the rusting. Product C1 had been widely used onshore
and offshore during the preceding 2 years without any problems, and there
was no immediate explanation for the sudden spot rusting phenomenon.

A laboratory investigation into the spot rusting problem was conducted,

but its results were not published. Consequently, the author is only able to
speculate about the reasons for its occurrence.

The application records indicated that a set of specific conditions, including

spray techniques, needed to occur during the application for the spot
rusting to develop. But the spot rusting was attributed mainly to the lower
zinc content in the dry film (i.e., 76 percent by weight). The use of product
C1 was then discontinued, and it was replaced by C3.

Spot rusting was also manifested in product E1 to a very minor degree.

Conclusions

The following conclusions are based on the findings described above.

• All HRZ coatings satisfied expectations for performance (even where dft
was less than 150 microns [6 mils]) and reduced risks to painters.
• Only 2 of the original 5 HRZ coatings met expectations in terms of
prescribed characteristics and cost effectiveness. These coatings displayed
fast cure and water resistance, early hardness, mudcracking resistance, and
recoatability. In addition, they offered lower material, labor, and handling
costs; minimum repairs; increased maintenance capacity; and ease of
application.
• Three of the original 5 HRZ coatings (A1, C1, and E1) appear to have
shortcomings in their formulations; consequently, they exhibit impractical
and unacceptable curing and application properties.
• The requirement of an early hardness of 750 P appears to be unrealistic,
is not a measure of cure, and has no bearing on the ultimate performance of
HRZ coatings. A level of early hardness appears to be important only in
terms of handling coated work without damage.
• A dft of greater than 150 microns (6 mils) appears to have a significant
effect on drying and curing rates in conditions of low temperatures and
high relative humidity.
• Appropriate, specific application techniques used by experienced
contractors were found to significantly reduce the effects of temperature
and relative humidity on the rate of cure.
• Contractors experienced in HRZ application have shown a marked
preference for using HRZ coatings, compared to other inorganic zinc
coatings and especially compared to multi-coat systems.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are based on the conclusions above.

• HRZ coatings that exhibited unacceptable shortcomings in their

application and curing characteristics should be withdrawn from
specifications until they undergo verified improvements.
• The early hardness acceptance criterion of 750 P can be safely replaced
with 350 P.
• The specified dft range of 125-175 microns (5-7 mils) should be reduced
to 100-150 microns (4-6 mils). This lower range would enhance curing
rates in poor ambient conditions and improve the system’s cost-
effectiveness without significantly affecting long-term performance.
• It is important that when selecting the HRZ product and the application
contractor, the prospective specifier or end user be guided by the
experiences of past and present end users of the single-coat HRZ system.
Notes

1. A. Szokolik, “Evaluating Single-Coat Inorganic Zinc Silicates for Oil

and Gas Production Facilities in Marine Environment,” JPCL, March 1992,
pp. 22-43.
2. Charles Munger, “Inorganic Zinc Coatings: A Review,” JPCL, June
1989, pp. 187-193.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank the following persons for providing information
used in this paper: Mike Moore, Chief Chemist, Vessey Chemicals; Charlie
Dalpozzo, Owner, Valicote Applicators; and Neville Bellotti, Chief
Coatings Inspector, Belneven Nominees.

Alex Szokolik heads A&A Szokolik Consulting Pty Ltd., Sale, Victoria,
Australia. He entered the field of protective coatings in 1963, working for
coatings manufacturers as a technical advisor on the correct application
and utilization of heavy-duty pipeline coatings. In 1975 he joined Esso
Australia Limited, where his responsibilities included testing and
specifying coatings for onshore and offshore oil and gas production
facilities and pipelines. His recent projects have included the training of
applicators and inspectors for the Vietnamese oil industry and for the
International Atomic Energy Authority in Malaysia. Szokolik is a member
of SSPC and the Australian Corrosion Association. He can be reached at
A&A Szokolik Consulting Pty Ltd., 2 Maxfields Rd., Sale, Victoria 380,
Australia; 011/61/446353.

May 1995