Selection of technologies should be made considering pipeline operations, fluids transported, and performance expectations. For example, for highly compressible fluids, such as natural gas, the sensitivity of vapor detection tools would far exceed that of meter-based solutions, but at a cost of occasional operation rather than continuous detection. However, meter-based solutions may recognize pipeline ruptures more quickly because of its continuous operation. It would be counter-productive to deploy duplicate solutions based on similar technologies. In the case of two (2) meter-based solutions, one would become more trusted than the other due to performance advantages provided by threshold settings or false alarm rate, yet their strengths and weaknesses would be very similar. Instead, it is worthwhile to deploy different technologies in order to benefit from different strengths of each solution. In such a case, there is no expectation that the tools would have similar performance. It is especially beneficial to deploy a meter-based solution along with a tool capable of locating a leak more accurately, even if the secondary tool is operated periodically instead of continuously. Protocols should be developed to use secondary tools to verify leak alarms issued by the primary system if possible.
Leak detection on petroleum pipelines
2012
7 Seiten, 1 Bild
Conference paper
English
Leak detection methods for pipelines
Tema Archive | 1987
|Leak detection methods for gas pipelines
Tema Archive | 1987
|Leak detection methods in transmission pipelines
Tema Archive | 2010
|Leak detection in pipelines using cepstrum analysis
Tema Archive | 2006
|Transient leak detection in crude oil pipelines
Tema Archive | 2004
|