Independent sales reps, US Coatings is interested in working with you. Check out our independent sales rep page to learn more and request additional information.

Learn more about becoming an independent sales rep.


Water-based coating vs. solvent-based coating

Water-based coatings vs. solvent-based coatings

Coatings frequently take their name from the binder, or resin, from which they’re made. Epoxies, alkyds and urethanes are all examples of resins that give a coating their name. But these aren’t the only parts that make up a coating. In addition to additives, which can lend a coating certain performance properties, and the pigments that lend color, coatings also contain an element that dissolves it all into a liquid for easy application.

This liquefying agent typically takes the form of water or some other chemical solvent. Hence the terms “water-based” and “solvent-based”. Which type of product is right for the job will depend on the circumstances. Generally speaking, one is not better than the other, but they do perform differently in different situations. Ideally, both options will exist side-by-side in a coating professional’s arsenal.

Water-based coatings

Water-based paints make up about 80 percent of household paints sold today according to the Paint Quality Institute, a paint advising and testing organization. There’s no doubt this is in large part due to one of the main attractions of water-based products, whether it’s an interior house paint or heavy-duty protective coating: fewer odors.

When working in confined or poorly ventilated spaces, the evaporation of solvents can be uncomfortable for workers or even flat out hazardous to their health. For this reason, many projects like those involving fuel storage tanks and railroad tank cars make use of water-based coatings. These also reduce the concentration of flammable materials that build up in a confined space. That does not mean, however, that the use of water-based coatings negates the need for OSHA approved confined space safety measures.

Environmental compliance is another common reason for choosing to use a water-based coating. Many solvents evaporate into what are known as volatile organic compounds, or VOCs. National, state and local governments often regulate VOCs by limiting how much businesses are allowed to emit in a given timespan. The EPA sets national rules for VOCs, but some states have tightened restrictions even further, necessitating concerted efforts to limit their emission.

Water-based coatings don’t necessarily contain zero solvents, though. Many contain what are called co-solvents, solvents present in lower concentrations and meant to help push the rest of the water out of the coating as it dries. But since water-based coatings have either no, or considerably less solvents, they are a great way to lower a business’s VOC output. For some companies, this can mean spending less on environmental compliance advising. Or keep them from paying significant fines for exceeding VOC quotas.

Solvent-based coatings

Solvent-based paints are made up of liquefying agents that are meant to evaporate via a chemical reaction with oxygen. Typically, moving air surrounding a solvent-based coating will help to speed up the reaction, reducing drying times.

These coatings have one major advantage over water-based coatings. They are less susceptible to environmental conditions such as temperature and humidity during the curing phase. Humidity can actually prevent the water in a water-based coating from evaporating, making them impractical in some climates.

Water-based coatings also present a challenge to the surface prep stage of a coating project. Water, while a promising substitute for solvents in some situations, is also a key component of the corrosion process, the entire reason for the industrial coatings industry in the first place. If water makes contact with the substrate before the coating is applied, spot rusting may begin to occur. In order to ensure that this is not the case, water-based coatings must be formulated so that all the water is drawn out through the surface film before corrosion can occur. This is not a consideration with solvent-based coatings.

So, in summary, though water-based coatings may be a good option for jobs involving confined spaces and continuous coatings use, they’re not without their weak spots. Jobs in open, humid conditions, such as those often found in infrastructure recoating projects, can still benefit from the right coating. If you would like to discuss which type of product might be best for your project, we’d love to hear from you. Get in touch with US Coatings today. Or, if you want to take a look at our full product line first, download our product catalog below.


Water-based coating vs. solvent-based coating

General paint specifications vs. intumescent fireproofing specifications

Following a call with an insurance firm or a company auditor, many owners simply don’t know where to turn to put a fireproofing plan in motion. As with writing any type of paint specifications, they tend to turn to one of three sources: an engineering firm, a trusted contractor or a supplier of fireproofing coatings.

Unlike with general paint specifications, fireproofing projects are highly specialized and it’s important that an owner fall back on an individual or firm with extensive experience with similar projects. If engineering firms have an in-house fireproofing expert, they can be a valuable resource in devising a plan. If not, a customer may wind up paying an engineer to outsource a job, a step that could undoubtedly be skipped to reduce costs. The same holds true for applicators. If they are unfamiliar with the products on the market, or even how they’re best applied, they will likely need to seek outside advice themselves.

In the end, a industrial coatings supplier will likely have the best understanding of the fireproofing products they supply. For US Coatings, that means having an in-depth understanding of Albi fireproofing paint specifications, the fireproofing product we carry. Experience should once again be a factor. If a supplier only recently began carrying a fireproofing product, and has little idea of how they behave, best practices for application and no suggestions for preferred contractors, it may be best to continue shopping for an expert with more experience that still remains within the project’s budget.

Regardless of which path is pursued, owners should expect a few things from an initial facility audit. It should come with detailed notes and photographs explaining the fireproofing measures to be undertaken in each section of the facility and why. It should include budgetary projections so that owners know what they’re paying for at each stage of the project. It’s also helpful if the expert is able to offer recommendations on applicators that have performed good work in the past and have experience with fireproofing facilities; this is where a strong working knowledge of intumescent paint specifications is essential.

The best reports following an initial audit will provide an owner with the peace of mind that comes from knowing how to proceed. Though a steel fireproofing project may have been mandated from an outside source, this document should alleviate any panic that comes from not knowing how to move forward. 

Intumescent paint specification experts

US Coatings is a supplier of a full line of Albi fireproofing products. Easy application of these single-component products makes them less expensive to apply, typically closing any gap in cost between an intumescent solution and a lightweight cementitious one.

We also have the in-house fireproofing expertise. Full facility audits provide owners with all the knowledge they need to move forward with a fireproofing project with confidence. It’s part of our promise to be more than just a paint and coatings supplier.

So whether industrial fireproofing is an unexpected project that needs to be dealt with immediately, or a facility safety measure that’s been put off for far too long, we’d be happy to be your first step. Follow this link and get in touch with US Coatings today.

Want to learn more about fireproofing?  Download the guide below for our full guide to fireproofing your assets.



Water-based coating vs. solvent-based coating

Intumescent Coating vs. Cementitious Coating

Passive fire protection tends to fall into one of the following three categories: dense concrete, lightweight cementitious and intumescent coating. They are not all created equal.  Recently, cementitious coatings have become less relevant to fireproofing a facility. As technology has progressed, intumescent coatings have superseded earlier methods of passive industrial fire protection as the most successful and cost-effective. Some of the reasons for that are discussed below.

Cementitious Coating or Intumescent for facilities

Dense concrete

The potential of concrete as a fire-resistant material was recognized long ago. Many refinement facilities constructed prior to World War II made extensive use of dense concrete as a means of protecting against fires. The material is inexpensive and was known to withstand even extremely high temperatures. Problems quickly emerged, though.

Concrete is heavy, which led to the need to over-specify structural steel. It also meant high labor costs, since forming concrete around steel is a laborious, multi-step process. It was also found that rapid cooling following a fire event leads to cracking in concrete and in some severe cases compromises the structural integrity of the material. This damage is sometimes difficult to detect and could become a danger to those working in the facility.

Dense concrete as a means of fireproofing has largely been abandoned in favor of more recent techniques, which offer superior performance and fewer drawbacks.

Lightweight cementitious

Lightweight cementitious fireproofing retains the benefit of being based on inexpensive raw materials and without the problems associated with extreme weight. As its name suggests, the material is significantly lighter than dense concrete and so doesn’t require the over-specification of structural steel. But lightweight cementitious fireproofing retains the high costs of labor associated with dense concrete. It must be applied in several successive coats, again driving up labor costs. These products also share their predecessor’s tendency to crack.

Perhaps the biggest liability with a cementitious coating, though, is the inevitable creation of space between the coating and the substrate. This space has a tendency to collect moisture, which in turn fosters corrosion of the substrate. In the long run, this unfortunate flaw can actually cause a lightweight cementitious coating to work against the integrity of the asset it was meant to protect.

Intumescent coatings

Intumescent coatings work by charring and expanding in the presence of extreme heat. The increase in volume and subsequent decrease in density slows the heating of the substrate, increasing the time before the steel itself begins to melt. Intumescents typically swell to 25 times their original thickness when engulfed in flames. This expansion allows them to provide a barrier between the flames and the steel that is exponentially larger than a coating that does not swell.

Adding thickness to an intumescent coating application increases the amount of swelling that will occur in the case of a fire incident. For example, if a 350 mil coating of a given intumescent has been determined to have a fire rating of 1.5 hours, 700 mils would theoretically be necessary to achieve a fire rating of 3 hours. In reality, though, added thickness is sometimes specified in certain areas such as curves and crevices, so something like a thickness of 750 mils may be required in order to achieve a 3-hour rating.

When intumescent coatings come in single-component formulas, they are much simpler to apply than dense concrete and lightweight cementitious coatings and are therefore accompanied by far lower labor costs.

Additionally, since they are applied directly to steel, no gap is created in which moisture can sit and incite corrosion. Intumescent coatings fight corrosion in much the same way as traditional protective coatings, the difference being their ability to swell and the much greater thicknesses at which they are initially applied. With all of the benefits of intumescent coatings combined, it’s our recommended method of fireproofing steel.

Still have questions about fireproofing? Download our fireproofing guide below or talk to a NACE-certified professional today by clicking here.



Water-based coating vs. solvent-based coating

Industrial fire protection starts with a protective coating

For some industrial facilities, fireproofing is a prerequisite for holding on to the facility’s insurance, at least at rates resembling anything close to affordable. Many owners of refineries, petrochemical and oil and gas facilities that contact us have just received a call from their insurance companies. They’ve been told that in order to keep their current plan, measures would need to be taken to ensure the facility has adequate industrial fire protection.

Throughout the refinement process, regardless of the desired final product, various flammable liquids and byproducts move along a network of pipes supported by structural steel. Pipe racks, refinement vessels, steel supporting structures, any construction which could potentially be exposed to a fire, and which could collapse before the fire is brought under control, will likely be designated for fireproofing. In the event of a fire, the flammable liquids at the heart of a business can quickly become the fuel helping to burn it down. Active industrial fire protection like foaming and sprinkler systems should kick in to battle the fire, but these measure are often meant only to slow a serious blaze.

While industrial fire protection via fireproofing is certainly a good idea—it can be the difference between a damaged facility and one that has suffered a total collapse—fireproofing steel mandates are usually followed up by very little in the way of specific direction.

If the insurance company is pushing for a plan to be in place immediately, fireproofing can be a stressful experience. Some areas that now need to be fireproofed may never have been fireproofed before. For other areas, it may have been years since fireproofing was last performed. Perhaps the facility has changed ownership by then, or the previous facility manager has moved on, leaving no personnel with fireproofing experience. Even auditors touring your facility, though they may have strong opinions on what sort of fireproofing work needs to be performed, will offer no clues as to how the work should be performed.

Industrial fire protection for refineries

Passive fire protection for your facility

As firefighters and active industrial fire protection systems battle the blaze, passive fire protection can buy valuable time for structural steel that would otherwise become distorted under such extreme heat. The purpose of passive fire protection is to protect this structural steel only for a given amount of time, until the fire can be extinguished. Refinery fires sometimes reach temperatures upwards of 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit; hot enough to melt most structural steel alloys.

Passive fire protection methods such as intumescent coatings are measured according to the time they have been proven to withstand these heats with the laboratory. Independent safety science companies, such as the Underwriters Laboratories (UL), provide third party testing of fireproofing coatings and then rate the products according to how long they are able to withstand the heat of the flames.

Insurance auditors will specify a necessary minimum time rating for an asset based on its use, susceptibility to fire and the anticipated difficulty of extinguishing an outbreak. The most common rating is 1.5 hours. Higher ratings can be achieved by adding mil thickness during application of the coating. UL 1709 is the standard most commonly applied to heavy industrial fireproofing products.

Still have questions about industrial fire protection? Download our guide to industrial fireproofing below or click here to speak to a NACE-certified professional today.



Water-based coating vs. solvent-based coating

An Open Letter From Mike Reed to Independent Sales Reps


Independent coatings sales reps are becoming something of a dying breed in industrial coatings these days. As a few companies rise to global standing, they are becoming increasingly obsessed with preserving margins on the sales side in order to compensate for the astronomical overheads required to maintain a shiny, global brand. Meanwhile, talented independent salespeople– each with their own stuffed Rolodexes (or a modern equivalent), industry expertise and entrepreneurial spirit– are being pushed to the side or absorbed into low-paying positions with almost non-existent sales incentives.

The Current Model

In place of the independent sales model, a few different strategies are emerging. National and international coatings giants are making efforts to formally bring independent salespeople into their employ, choosing to not provide commissions that make a salesperson a living commensurate with their talents.

Still other coatings manufacturers are, and have been for some time, erecting brick and mortar locations in their operational areas and having dealers work from these shops alongside the armies of employees that man the shops. It has the same effect of reducing or eliminating commissions for sales and, I suspect, removing any incentive for above-and-beyond salesmanship.

This distribution model is still practiced on a much smaller scale by independent sales reps, but more and more large manufacturers are pulling their products from these reps to keep from having to divvy up margins. The products still being sold by independent reps now tend to come more from niche manufacturers.

Perhaps this is part of a larger movement in the United States and elsewhere, where all possible efforts are made to concentrate profits at the summit of the organizational pyramid. Major industrial coatings brands are now confident enough in the esteem of their global brand that they no longer invest much on the sales side. They let their product’s labels do their selling for them.

An Alternative Model

It is possible, even still, to find another mode of operation (and full disclosure, this is the one that I have always envisioned for my own business). This model is based on nimble, responsive salesmanship. It is a global network, without the overseas offices. It is a web of talented, independent salespeople with their own contacts, experience and incentive to sell.

The independent sales model keeps all of the manufacturing capabilities without the overhead that comes with putting the brand name above everything else. And lower operating costs free up space for higher commissions. Higher commissions in turn attract a more driven, talented sales force.

There may be fewer and fewer players in industrial coatings who operate by this model, but that just means a deeper talent pool. For these companies, locating seasoned independent salespeople represents the biggest challenge and the biggest opportunity to challenge established industry megabrands.

The independent salesperson may be an endangered species, but for emerging coatings companies, they represent a mutually beneficial opportunity to seriously grow sales volume.

New Call-to-action


Water-based coating vs. solvent-based coating

Talking to a Paint Specs Professional

Finding out who to talk to about paint specifications is often one of the biggest hurdles for facility owners and managers. They simply don’t know where to start. They usually rely on one of three options. They either reach out directly to a contractor, to an engineering firm or to the manufacturers themselves.

The Contractor

There are obvious issues with expecting a contractor to write paint specifications for a project, especially if they plan on being involved in the bidding process. The potential for conflict of interest between the contractor and owner is simply too high. That said, a trusted contractor is often able to point an owner in the direction of an engineering firm or manufacturer with whom they’ve worked in the past and whose specifications they have been satisfied with.

Engineering Firms

Engineering firms tend to write thorough, detailed project specification sheets, though typically at a cost. When it comes to the paint portion of the specification, some larger engineering firms will have a coatings specialist on staff. Others will, like contractors, fall back on trusted connections they’ve worked with in the past. This may mean going directly to the manufacturer to consult product data sheets or for an opinion on products. Say, for instance, which coating would be capable of standing up to a specific chemical concoction housed in a large storage tank.

Coatings Manufacturers

Coatings manufacturers specialize in the sort of details hashed out in a paint specification sheet. They are familiar with the strengths and drawbacks of their products, ideal application conditions and the best methods for applying them. Coatings sales representatives need to make sure their products work properly. They have a vested interest in writing specifications in such a way that their products live out their service lives and successfully guard against corrosion. Otherwise, repeat business is a pipe dream.

That said, owners should not assume that all manufacturer-generated spec sheets are created equal. Some will call it a done deal once they’ve talked to you on the phone, heard you describe the conditions in your facility, and then written you a recommendation for a product that will probably get the job done. In general, if a manufacturer makes a recommendation after only one phone call, it’s time to cue the alarm bells.

A more detailed approach to a paint specification sheet is likely needed for a successful project. The writer should have a feel for the ambient conditions surrounding the asset in question. Personally inspecting current levels of corrosion, atmospheric conditions, frequency of wetting, operating temperature fluctuations and other site-specific concerns will lead to a better understanding of the stresses the coatings will be exposed to, and the level of protection needed to preserve the asset.

If an owner should decide to go to a coatings manufacturer for writing paint specifications, he or she should demand at least that level of detail. If the manufacturer is unable or unwilling to accommodate those standards, it would perhaps be wise to explore other options. Remember, the specification sheet will determine the entire scope and direction of your project. It’s not a place to cut corners.

US Coatings

If you would like to discuss writing paint specifications further – the writing process, what you should expect from a completed document, or ask any question you may have – please contact one of our NACE-certified professionals at US Coatings.

Alternatively, if you want to know more about paint specifications, download our comprehensive guide to writing paint specifications below.




Water-based coating vs. solvent-based coating

Breaking Down Paint Specifications

The paint specifications sheet will determine the entire scope of any coating project. Specifically, for a painting project, this is broken down into three broad categories; the product to be used, the surface preparation required and how the product should be applied.

As mentioned in our previous post on how to write paint specifications, a specification’s worth is largely a matter of detail. Instructions must be detailed enough to avoid misunderstandings between the contractor and the owner, while not being unnecessarily restrictive. The following are details that may be included for each category of the specification.

The Product

“Sole spec” sheets are written specifically for a certain product. This is a situation where “shall” or an equally stern term will be used to refer to the product to be used. In some instances, such as federally funded projects, sole spec sheets are not permitted. In these instances, a few options may be provided, or “may” will be used to indicate a tolerable substitute. Here a product may be referred to as “trade name or equal”. This section will also likely specify any unique product formulations the project requires. For instance, if strict VOC regulations are a concern, this section could stipulate a high solids or even 100% solids formulation.

Surface Preparation

The most commonly accepted industry standards pertaining to surface preparation were devised by the Society for Protective Coatings (SSPC) and the National Association of Corrosion Engineers International (NACE). These are the gold standard for measuring the readiness of a surface to receive a coat of paint. These surface preparation standards range from SP1 to SP14, though a higher number does not necessarily indicate a higher level of surface cleanliness. Each standard indicates the method of cleaning as well as criteria for evaluating the outcome. For instance, an SP5/NACE 1 level of surface preparation is a white metal blast cleaning “that should leave the surface free of visible oil, grease, dust, dirt, mill scale, rust, coating, oxides, corrosion products and other foreign matter.”

Because surface preparation is such a tremendously important step in the process (improperly preparing a surface is a surefire way to shorten the coating’s service life) spec sheets must either stipulate the required level of surface preparation or direct the contractor to a product data sheet that does so.


This is another section of the spec sheet that should heavily reference specific product data sheets. The ambient conditions, number of coats and mil thickness required for a successful application should be spelled out in that document.

The specification sheet should also specify the method to be used during application. If a specific formulation, such as a 100% solids formulation is called for, then this section should also include any notes on required application equipment such as plural component pumps. The contractor should also be made aware of any other challenges that may arise during the application process in this section of the specification sheet.

Your paint specification sheet will specify what products are needed and how they need to be applied, as well as the surface preparation required for the job. These are the core elements of a paint specification, but to learn everything there is to know about paint specifications you can download our comprehensive guide below.




Water-based coating vs. solvent-based coating

What are Paint Specifications?

Implementing corrosion protection for your facility all starts with one important document: your paint specifications sheet. Your paint specifications sheet will outline the entire course of your project. This document must clearly and concisely lay out the conditions and processes that will prevent corrosion and other harmful damages to your facility.

It is not a statement of how the project should look once completed, but rather a detailed explanation of the conditions necessary to achieve maximum service life and corrosion protection. Paint specifications are the project template, and if something is wrong with the template, the finished product simply won’t perform properly.

In the unfortunate event of a dispute between a contractor and a project owner, the project specifications will also likely be used to determine whether each party lived up to its responsibilities. This is just another reason to make sure your paint specifications are thorough and clear before a project gets off the ground.

How to Write Paint Specifications

Well-written paint specifications contain exactly as much detail as they need to make expectations clear and no more. Industrial coatings are more complex than they used to be, and paint specifications need to reflect that complexity.

At the same time, these specifications need to be unambiguous in order to avoid confusion about an owner’s expectations. It should be clear to a contractor that the owner expects all aspects of the document to be lived up to, or else any recommended changes should be clearly mentioned during the bidding process.

Clarity of the paint specifications will reduce the likelihood that a contractor’s work does not conform to expectations. A clear understanding between both parties will also reduce the probability that expensive change orders will need to be filed during the course of the work.

As mentioned before, specifications can act as legal documents in the case of a dispute, and any confusion resulting from unclear specifications may increase the risk of a breach of contract or a legal dispute.

But what are the actual elements of a specification document?

What exactly is being specified?

For answers to these questions and more info on who to talk to about paint specifications, download our whitepaper below.




Water-based coating vs. solvent-based coating

The cost effectiveness of flow efficiency coatings

Note: This is the fourth of a series of posts covering the definition, development and properties of flow efficiency coatings. Click the button at the bottom of this post to download the full PDF.

internal pipe coatings

Our series on flow coatings has hopefully been building the case that, when the advantages of flow efficiency coatings are combined with the corrosion-resistant properties of 100 solids coatings, they more than justify the expenditure.

Flow coatings have been shown to reduce both capital and operating expenditures over the long term. A 2000 study demonstrated that flow coatings were capable of cutting friction coefficients by 50 percent in carbon steel pipes.

Another study by Rafael Zamorano shows that a 1,200 km pipeline owned by GasAtacama returned substantial savings by using internal flow coatings. The company reported saving $2.4 million in fuel for compressor stations alone. When this figure was added to reductions in capital and operating costs, savings exceeded $20 million.

Shell Global Solutions was recently able to demonstrate cost savings of 5% on a 250 km stretch of pipeline because flow efficiency coatings allowed them to move to a smaller diameter pipe. France’s Institut Francais du Petrole realized cost savings of 7-14% in lightly corroded pipe and 15-25% in the case of highly corroded pipe.

The sticker shock that accompanies these 100 percent solids has discouraged owners from investing in them, despite the returns on investment they have been found to deliver. On average, 100 percent solids run around twice the cost of the same amount of 50 percent solids.

Fortunately, these higher solid coatings end up covering about twice the surface area of the lower solid option. This turns the price difference into a relative wash. Once the added benefits of a 100 percent solid are factored in—zero VOCs, no loss factors since the components aren’t mixed until the time of the application and added corrosion protection—then 100 percent solids bring far more to the table than their apparently lower-priced counterparts.

The debate over the cost-effectiveness of flow efficiency coatings has raged for some time. But developments in 100 percent solids coatings lead to added benefits as internal pipe coatings that tip the balance in favor of these coatings. Unlike their forerunners, these coatings allow for added mil thickness when corrosion protection is a concern. In addition to increasing hydraulic efficiency and preventing buildup, internal pipeline coatings are now able to provide effective corrosion protection. And given the rise of new forms of oil and gas extraction, corrosive materials will soon be flowing through a lot more pipeline.

Flow efficiency coatings


Water-based coating vs. solvent-based coating

Note: This is the third of a series of posts covering the definition, development and properties of flow efficiency coatings. Click the button at the bottom of this post to download the full PDF.

Flow efficiency plus internal pipeline corrosion control

For years, regulatory agencies have focused on the issue of external pipeline corrosion, sometimes neglecting or leaving aside the question of internal corrosion. Not surprisingly given the harsh environments many oil and gas pipelines operate in, most of the energy has been allocated to preventing corrosion occurring on the outside of pipelines.

Only recently have pipeline owners begun to focus serious attention on problems (and missed opportunities) stemming from internal buildup and corrosion. As documented cases of internal corrosion pile up, the argument for flow efficiency coatings being a sound investment is strengthened. The proliferation of hydraulic fracturing and similar methods of oil and gas extraction only furthers this conclusion. For an explanation of why these methods introduce more corrosive elements than traditional extraction methods, see this post on tank linings in the age of hydraulic fracturing.

Traditionally, internal pipeline coatings have been divided into two groups: those aimed at improving hydraulic efficiency and those aimed at controlling corrosion. Flow coatings, typically applied at a thickness of around 2 mils, were not sufficiently thick to be considered corrosion resistant linings, which are typically around 5 mils thick.

But 100 percent solids can help to close this gap between traditional flow coatings and corrosion resistant ones. Unlike with water or solvent-based coatings, 100 percent solids allow for the addition of mil thickness until the desired level is reached. There is no danger of water or solvents becoming trapped within the film build because there is no water or solvent.

This feature allows 100 percent solids to provide added value as internal pipeline coatings, since they serve both to increase hydraulic efficiency and to fight the sort of corrosion that can lead to disastrous financial and environmental setbacks.

Internal pipeline corrosion control

As mentioned in an earlier post, increased attention is being paid to flow rate and instances of internal corrosion. According to a study conducted by the API, corrosion was still the leading cause of leaks by 2012. There were 204 total incidents of internal corrosion between 1999 and 2012. Of these incidents, 31 occurred in portions of pipeline that had intermittent flow and seven in portions that had no flow. In these instances of low to no flow, water is more likely to collect against the side of the pipe, creating the conditions necessary for corrosion to occur.

The report concludes that, while instances of external corrosion continue to be the leading cause of incidents along pipelines, much more has been done to address these external issues. As a result, their rate of occurrence is dropping far faster than instances of internal corrosion.

When the stakes include the costs of a damaged asset, time lost with the asset out of service, leaked material and environmental liabilities, then it stands to reason that internal anti-corrosion coatings justify the initial cost output. If they also combine flow-efficiency properties, their value is all the more certain.

Flow efficiency coatings

Contact us