Risk evaluation and preventive measure of buried outer pipelines in transfer station: A case study of AZ1 transfer station, area S, northwestern China
-
摘要: 原油从井口采出后,依靠自身压力经过埋地管线运输到计转站进行加热、脱水、增压后,再压送至联合站做进一步的脱硫、脱水、油气水三相分离等复杂的技术处理,最终进入长输管线外输。考虑到原油输送至联合站在整个工艺流程上的复杂性和输送介质具有火灾爆炸的危险性,不仅需要对联合站集输工艺流程进行提前风险预警,还需要对从井口至联合站的埋地管线进行风险预警。由于原油集中在联合站处理,从井口至联合站间的埋地管线输送的是未处理的原油,这部分管线更容易发生腐蚀开裂,所以更有必要对计转站的外输管线进行风险评价,将危险控制在可控范围内,并针对局部危险管道进行防范处理。以西北某油田S区AZ1计转站外输管线为例,收集3年来该管线发生穿孔事故的原因并进行统计,基于故障树(FTA)对管线的正常运行、运行的风险以及发生穿孔事故的因素进行分析,总结规律并采取防控对策。
-
关键词:
- 计转站 /
- 埋地管线 /
- 风险评价 /
- 故障树分析(FTA)
Abstract: Crude oils went through buried pipelines by their original pressure to transfer stations after pumping out from wells. They were heated, dried and pressured, and then transported to oil-gas united stations for further complicated processing such as desulfuration, dehydration and oil-gas-water separation, and finally sent outside through long-distance pipelines. In consideration of the complexity of technological process and the dangerousness of transmission medium, an early-warning system of risks is required not only for the process of gathering and transportation, but also for the buried pipelines between wells and oil-gas united stations. Since crude oils are untreated until transporting to united stations, the buried pipelines between wells and united stations are easily to be corroded and crack. Therefore, a risk evaluation and preventive measure of buried outer pipelines are really needed. A case study was made in AZ1 transfer station, S area in an oilfield in northwestern China. We collected and counted all corrosion reasons for three years, and studied normal operations, operation risks and corrosion causes using Fault Tree Analysis (FTA). An early-warning system of risks and some preventive measures were provided.-
Key words:
- transfer station /
- buried pipeline /
- risk evaluation /
- Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)
-
[1] 张世翔,章言鼎. 青岛输油管道泄漏爆炸事故分析与整改建议[J]. 工业安全与环保,2014(12):89-91. [2] 王玉算. 危险化学品事故应急救援机制研究[D]. 泉州:华侨大学, 2015. [3] 孙伟博,李华,蒲子芳,等. 从青岛、大连两起输油管道爆炸事件谈陆地溢油应急处置[J]. 环境工程,2015(S1):883-886. [4] 张树才,牟善军,赵勇,等. 风险评估和事故调查改进探讨:青岛"11·22"输油管道爆炸事故反思[J]. 安全、健康和环境,2015(12):7-10. [5] 张媛媛,王敏,卢宏伟,等. 青岛黄潍输油管道泄漏爆炸事故溢油风化规律[J]. 环境化学,2015(9):1741-1747. [6] 赵东风,陈爽,赵志强,等. 基于脆弱性的油气管道风险评估及其应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报,2014(7):57-62. [7] 戚建刚. 解析"11·22"青岛输油管道爆炸事件中的六类违法行为[J]. 法学杂志,2014(6):37-43. [8] 王毅辉,李勇,蒋蓉,等. 中国石油西南油气田公司管道完整性管理研究与实践[J]. 天然气工业,2013(3):78-83. [9] 辛颖,王岩. 基于作业条件危险性分析的集输站场模糊风险评价[J]. 化学工程与装备,2015(4):211-214. [10] 张照鸿. 延长气田集输管道的事故分析及风险评价[D]. 西安:西安石油大学, 2014. [11] 蒋宏业. 油田联合站风险评价技术研究[D]. 成都:西南石油学院, 2004. [12] 王明凤. 集输场站量化风险评价应用研究[D]. 武汉:长江大学, 2012. [13] 辛颖,王岩. 油气集输站场实时风险预警评价体系研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报,2013(5):151-155.
计量
- 文章访问数: 1785
- HTML全文浏览量: 62
- PDF下载量: 142
- 被引次数: 0