Pipeline Sabotage

[Gator]

In areas that have risk of damage from, uh, let's say, ballistic violence or non-internal pressure-induced explosions, why aren't the lines buried?

Is it a cost factor?

It would seem to me that technology advances in trenching would make this more economical especially if combined with sensors to detect tampering.

 

[IRstuff]

Seems to me that buried lines will die substantially more often from accidental digging or drilling. It might also be substantially easier to find an above-ground break or leak than the same from a buried line.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[BigInch]

There's no problem with digging. Sometimes its just a gathering line to a short-life well and they want the gas flowing faster than they can wait to dig a trench, but most of the time its just cheap operators.

In Colombia, they dig first then plant explosives.
Most of the time its just 36" or a meter of cover and a large truck bomb can handle that. There's all kinds of security problems with pipelines. Bullets hitting exposed valves, backhoes digging other utility lines.. in Lousiana they hot tap them and run a buried 1" line to the house. If not that, they just dig them up by accident. It takes constant security patrols, if they're buried or not.

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, its what we know for sure" - Mark Twain

 

[GregLamberson]

Gastor:

It is a cost factor. Unless the risk at the time of construction is known or anticipated, burial is not considered as a sabotage or militant mitigation.

There are a number of mitigations that countries like Colombia, Pakistan, Afghanistan have put in place (Nigeria is looking at a comprehensive revamp of their pipeline security), and part of the strategy is burial, but that alone is but a minor deterrent.

Greg Lamberson, BS, MBA
Consultant - Upstream Energy
Website:

http://www.oil-gas-consulting.com

 

[metengr]

It comes down to economics, as GregLamberson mentioned.

 

[BigInch]

Let's don't get carried away with economics. Remember that there are sometimes legal requirements that require burial, as per this example covering installations in water and plastic pipe on land and many other jurisdictions and landowners along the ROW may also require burial as a condition of granting the Right-of-Way.

**************************************************
CFR Title 49 Part 192
**************************************************
§ 192.319 Installation of pipe in a
(c) All offshore pipe in water at least
12 feet (3.7 meters) deep but not more
than 200 feet (61 meters) deep, as measured
from the mean low tide, except
pipe in the Gulf of Mexico and its inlets
under 15 feet (4.6 meters) of water,
must be installed so that the top of the
pipe is below the natural bottom unless
the pipe is supported by stanchions,
held in place by anchors or heavy concrete
coating, or protected by an equivalent
means. Pipe in the Gulf of Mexico
and its inlets under 15 feet (4.6 meters)
of water must be installed so that the
top of the pipe is 36 inches (914 millimeters)
below the seabed for normal
excavation or 18 inches (457 millimeters)
for rock excavation.
*************************************************
§ 192.321 Installation of plastic pipe.
(a) Plastic pipe must be installed
below ground level except as provided
by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section.
*************************************************
192.325
(e) Except as provided in paragraph
(c) of this section, all pipe installed in
a navigable river, stream, or harbor
must be installed with a minimum
cover of 48 inches (1,219 millimeters) in
soil or 24 inches (610 millimeters) in
consolidated rock between the top of
the pipe and the underwater natural
bottom (as determined by recognized
and generally accepted practices).
(f) All pipe installed offshore, except
in the Gulf of Mexico and its inlets,
under water not more than 200 feet (60
meters) deep, as measured from the
mean low tide, must be installed as follows:
...

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, its what we know for sure" - Mark Twain

 

[GregLamberson]

The question was regarding those that were built above ground and are being sabotaged and why they were built that way.

For new (and more recent installations) - correct. But many of the pipelines that are getting sabotaged and blown up and that are above ground and were built that way because it was the cheaper alternative. CFR doesn't isn't mandated everywhere.

Granted the more modern day pipelines are generally built with risk & terrorism incorporated into the designs, but that wasn't always the case.

Greg Lamberson, BS, MBA
Consultant - Upstream Energy
Website:

http://www.oil-gas-consulting.com

 

[BigInch]

Right Greg. Only covering the bases. I was just thinking that all our responses might be taken as expounding on the idea that it was totally an economic consideration, or totally optional, if you didn't care about the money.

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, its what we know for sure" - Mark Twain

 

[stanweld]

One of our buried gas lines traversed a military air/gunnery range. More than once, one of jet jockies used our marked pipeline right-of-way for target practice.

 

[BigInch]

I guess unmarked pipelines do have their advantages, but that's against the CFRs, unless "they can't be marked" for some presumedly physical reason like being offshore.

I worked on a Ministry of Defense project for a mideast country where even the strategic pump stations were underground, but there was still only 1 meter of cover on the pipelines. They wanted to bury the booster stations too, but we convinced them they weren't a strategic part of the project. They make daily patrols of all pipeline facilities via an adjacent pipeline trail road. Two of the pipelines go through specially built pipeline tunnels, one 18 km long, the other 24 km long. Can't tell you more, or I'd have to shoot you afterwards.

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, its what we know for sure" - Mark Twain

 

[racp12]

Mr. Greg Lamberson wrote:
"Granted the more modern day pipelines are generally built with risk & terrorism incorporated into the designs"

My question is:
The provisions regarding terrorism, are included under B31.4 and B31.8? or, are they part of engineering practices of design companies?

 

[BigInch]

Finally getting to the details.
Check these out.

API Security Guide for the Petroleum Industry

http://new.api.org/policy/otherissues/upload/Security.pdf

http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/sectors/pipeline/securitypreparedness.cfm

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL31990.pdf

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, its what we know for sure" - Mark Twain

 

[GregLamberson]

racp12

I know it is not addressed in 31.4 or 8 - it may be in the CFR's - I know the US, after 9/11 reviewed and revised their regs for pipeline security via the Dept of Homeland Sec, but I have not worked in the States in some years.

For the most part, in the case of Colombia and Pakistan, it is national security that drives it and it's incorporated in the NOC's SOP's. I am preparing to do a study for the Niger Delta on pipeline security and part of the study will involve providing language recommendations for government decrees & regs - I have not kicked it off yet, but should soon.

Once I do and start doing the research (I'll use Colombia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the US as sources) I will have a better idea of what, how, and where these requirements are driven.

Greg Lamberson, BS, MBA
Consultant - Upstream Energy
Website:

http://www.oil-gas-consulting.com

 

[BigInch]

Greg, I'd use models that work, unless you need a model that doesn't, I'd say that definately excludes Colombia, or includes it, respectively.

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, its what we know for sure" - Mark Twain

 

[GregLamberson]

BigInch

Exactly, I think Colombia would provide some good lessons learned from a negative (and some positive) standpoint. I do want to look as a whole of what has been done in countries with high risk - what works, what doesn't, etc.

Greg Lamberson, BS, MBA
Consultant - Upstream Energy
Website:

http://www.oil-gas-consulting.com

 

[rconner]

While buried lines are no doubt also subject to damage, I think there has always been some increased risk (safety and otherwise) of normal and accidental impacts to many exposed pipelines (or for that matter pipeline supports), whether that be by construction equipment, forklifts or equipment handling cranes, vehicular traffic, accidents, rock slides/boulders in mountainous areas or who knows what else flying through the air etc. Thus even among those with schools of thought that basically anything with a hole in each end will work as pipe (heck, line up toilet paper rolls underground!), they are most often however going to choose pipes that are known to be very strong and impact/damage resistant in all directions (e.g. steel or ductile iron etc.) for aboveground pipelines. Also, while the pipe doesn’t necessarily require it they may also even choose to add in some redundancy in supports. I can remember reading various test reports dating back a half a century ago or more of many kinds of hammer impact and projectile testing associated with even installations of exposed steel and ductile iron pipe crossings in remote areas. However, I suspect the major fear back then was rough shipping roads/construction handling, and/or “likkered up” hunters eventually taking “sound shots” in the woods, whereas nowadays we unfortunately have significant numbers of supposedly sober crazies wanting to deliberately hurt or terrorize people and the infrastructure they depend on! I think by and large the thinking of most designers for many years with regard to aboveground pipelines at least up until this point has been pretty good (case in point I think I heard that the Alaska Pipeline has been known hit maybe 50 or so times by bullets over the decades, and I think I have heard maybe only one has actually punched a hole in the pipe!)

 

[BigInch]

PART 195--TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE--Table of Contents

Subpart D--Construction

Sec. 195.248 Cover over buried pipeline.

(a) Unless specifically exempted in this subpart, all pipe must be
buried so that it is below the level of cultivation. Except as provided
in paragraph (b) of this section, the pipe must be installed so that the
cover between the top of the pipe and the ground level, road bed, river
bottom, or sea bottom, as applicable, complies with the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cover inches (millimeters)
---------------------------
Location For normal For rock
excavation excavation \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial, commercial, and residential 36 (914) 30 (762)
areas......................................
Crossings of inland bodies of water with a 48 (1219) 18 (457)
width of at least 100 ft (30 mm) from high
water mark to high water mark..............
Drainage ditches at public roads and 36 (914) 36 (914)
railroads..................................

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, its what we know for sure" - Mark Twain

 

[Sid7]

GregLamberson

Big water trunk line was punctured where it passed through slum area and when it burst some casulties happenend, as far as I recall. Its not the Petroleum Pipelines always.



Siddharth
These are my personal views/opinions and not of my employer's.