Shell to Sea disrupt Community Protest

Sponge Bob

Is th'oul weetabix still getting in the way of an explanation ??

youtheman

You obviously don't get it. You come on here, and to be fair to you, you were making some valid points. Then you went 'off the rails' when you started talking about splitting a 100 bar pipeline into 4 x 25 bar pipeline. It would be like someone talking about splitting a 220 volt power line into 4 x 55 volt lines just to avoid the risk from the high voltage. It simply doesn't work like that.

RealityCheck

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Is th'oul weetabix still getting in the way of an explanation ??

I think the point he is trying to make is that 4 x 25 bar is not the same as a 100 bar pipeline. The quatities of gas being brought ashore from either will not be the same, as adding pressures in parallel pipelines does not equal the pressure in an equivilant 1 pipeline. Its just basic hydraulic and physics.

Sponge Bob

youtheman wrote: »

It simply doesn't work like that.

Again the ould weetabix is getting between you and explaining anything . Simly saying NO all the time is a shell to sea grade argument .

Either explain pressure reduction principles or let the weetabix finish the job , thx.

youtheman

O.K. Let me give me 'spiel' on pressure.

Pressure is an engineering parameter, admittedly one of the most important parameters when designing a pipeline. But it is catered for in the pipeline design.

Did anyone 'object' when Airbus decided to design and build the A380. Did anyone object when they decided to build the Petronas Twin Towers (I suppose the answer is 'yes'), but the point I'm trying to make is that most reasonable people just let the engineers get on with the design.

Back to pressure. Two great things about pressure are :
1. the pipeline is hydrotested to 1.5 times the design pressure. You can't do this with a new bridge, or tunnel, or sky-scraper. So you are guaranteed that it can take the pressure. I've never heard of a case where a pipeline operator has had to go back and modify a pipeline because it couldn't take the pressure.

2. the actual operating pressure of the pipeline declines the minute you start to deplete the reservoir. So over time the 'safety margin' actually increases.

I know for a fact that the Corrib pipeline has a greater wall thickness than the basis design requires. So there is even more of a safety margin built in.

So my argument is that rabbiting on about 'pressure' is an absolute 'red-herring'.

Sponge Bob

It is not a red herring at all , absent any control valve / pressure control between the wellhead assembly and the teminal in Bellinaboy there is no way to stop 70 linear miles of high pressure gas escaping if there is a rupture .

The Appomattox rupture ( pictures attached earlier in this thread) occured in a pipeline that had been subjected to due engineering design considerations and then **** me if it didn't explode one day anyway .

Even assuming that some clown with a digger does not cause the rupture it is proposed to run some of the onshore pipeline to the terminal through unstable bog terrain which can heave and slip and cause lateral pressures leading to a rupture .

The onshore pipeline basically does not have enough engineering safety built in , they should go off and do it properly , it is only 5 miles long and is insignificant in the overall scheme of things . Then again this company wanted a 340 bar pipeline in the first place and had to be worked on strongly to reduce that pressure in the first place.

Splitting into multiple lower pressure pipelines reduces the safety distance margins from humans and from each other pipe in a wider potential corridor and introduces a control valve mechanism near on on shore that can shut down rapidly in case of rupture .

You are correct in saying the internal pressure will reduce over time and is predicted to noticeably drop within only a few years as the field is depleted ...but that means you assume they will not find any further fields 'out there' to tie back to the Corrib field and thereby increase that pressure again .

I am perplexed as to how they will pig condensate buildup from the pipe given its length and the fact that it is all underwater out there . Absent pigging the diameter will reduce from condensate buildup but will not do so evenly leading to internal strains at unpredictable locations .

Maybe someone can help with this perplexing query because otherwise it means that the diameter of teh pipe will reduce with the reservoir pressure ....but not necessarily the pipeline pressure .

youtheman

You continue on with the 'red herrings'.

You put up some lovely picture of a pipeline failure, and when I googled it I came up with the following 'explanation'.

"Outside corrosion caused the rupture and subsequent explosion in September of a natural gas pipeline just north of the town of Appomattox."

So there was nothing wrong with the pipeline design, it was a maintenence issue. Bit like putting up a picture of a car crash and blaming the car manufacturer.

You also mention "Absent pigging the diameter will reduce from condensate buildup but will not do so evenly leading to internal strains at unpredictable locations ". Again, I don't know where you are getting your information from. But to assert that a build up of condensate WILL LEAD TO INTERNAL STRAINS is (again) simply incorrect.

biko

I can totally understand why people living in the locality protest something that could possibly kill them without warning.
List of gas line incidents

Feel free to debate the hazards of the line or the OP (cutbacks protest which was hijacked by Shell to Sea) but no more calling the protesters hippies, scumbags, sociopaths etcetera. They are people with real concerns and you should address the concerns, not trying to smear them.

Also, keep GAAW out of this mess. No need to try to get a dig in there too.

Sponge Bob

youtheman wrote: »

"Outside corrosion caused the rupture and subsequent explosion in September of a natural gas pipeline just north of the town of Appomattox."

So how do you inspect the OUTSIDE of a pipe buried in a bog then , pray tell ???

You also mention "Absent pigging the diameter will reduce from condensate buildup but will not do so evenly leading to internal strains at unpredictable locations ". Again, I don't know where you are getting your information from. But to assert that a build up of condensate WILL LEAD TO INTERNAL STRAINS is (again) simply incorrect.

If the effective diameter is reduced at a location from internal crud buildup then the pressure will increase at that location ...which is SIMPLY CORRECT . An increase of pressure is an internal strain .

Your arguments are highly circular I fear.

youtheman

Question : So how do you inspect the OUTSIDE of a pipe buried in a bog then , pray tell ???


Answer : It's very simple, you can use an intelligent pig which will give you a 100% inspection, including internal and external corrosion. BGE have being doing this for years.

You also monitor the fluid being produced to confirm that there is no internal corrosion mechanism present. And you also measure the Cathodic Protection on the external wall of the pipeline to make sure that's still working. So you can guarantee that there is no corrosion present in the pipeline.

You'd swear that all these 'scenarios' were never present in a pipeline before. This is all standard, in thousands of miles of pipelines running throughout the world (and, by the way, we've had gas pipelines running throughout Ireland since the late 1970's).

youtheman

Magnus wrote: »

I can totally understand why people living in the locality protest something that could possibly kill them without warning.
List of gas line incidents

I had a look at this list. At first glance, it looks 'daunting', but on closer inspection it's not.

All the incidents in Nigeria was from 'locals' trying to steal product from the line. Not relevant to Corrib.

So let's concentrate on the USA. It's fair to assume to regulations have been 'tightened' so for relevant incidents we should start at the bottom of the list.

2008 explosion in Hartsville. Cause : Tornado. Not relevant to Corrib.
2007 explosion in Carmichael. Propane line. Not relevant.
2007 New York Steam line. Not relevant.
2003 Excavation damage. Not really relevant (but I suppose there are cowboys operating in Mayo as well).
2002 Crude Oil. Not relevant.

I could go on, but I won't. The point I'm trying to make is that I'd find it hard to find an explosion of a natural gas pipeline that was anyway remotely relevant to the Corrib line.

But I'm open to correction. Maybe someone can idenfiy one that we can debate by way of 'case study'.

Sponge Bob

I know you can use intelligent pigs onshore but from 70 miles out with all the pipes underwater or buried in a bog in Rossport pray tell how ??

The unique problem in Mayo is that the processing terminal is inland , every other country builds these terminals on the coast .

Sponge Bob

youtheman wrote: »

But I'm open to correction. Maybe someone can idenfiy one that we can debate by way of 'case study'.

You are forgetting that **** happens and that engineering for **** happening is often quite cheap . The Transcanada pipeline is maintained to the highest standards and is easily accessible being onshore .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransCanada_pipeline

At around 00:45 GMT on 1 December 2003, a rupture in the pipeline occurred at approximately 53°53′N 117°41′W / 53.883°N 117.683°W / 53.883; -117.683 (120 km south of Grande Prairie, Alberta). 14 hours later, another rupture and fire occurred 15 km downstream from the initial incident. According to TransCanada PipeLines, the breaks were immediately isolated, and any already escaped gas was allowed to burn off.

Now to recent times.

http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUSN2839776520090928

Mon Sep 28, 2009 11:18am EDT

CALGARY, Alberta, Sept 28 2009 (Reuters) - TransCanada Corp (TRP.TO) said on Monday that one of its natural gas pipelines in northern Ontario ruptured on Saturday but there were no injuries and supplies were rerouted to alternate lines.


The company, the country's largest natural-gas shipper, said a line capable of carrying 7 billion cubic feet of gas per day broke about 60 kilometers (37 miles) northwest of North Bay, Ontario.


It does not yet know the cause of the breach, the second for the company in northern Ontario this month. (Reporting by Scott Haggett; editing by Peter Galloway)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aBEdYAVFHyco

The explosion and line break occurred on a 30-inch mainline about 37 miles (60 kilometers) northwest of North Bay, Ontario, James Millar, a company spokesman, said in a telephone interview. There is “not expected to be any impact on service to customers” because the gas is being rerouted through another pipeline, he said

Finally , look at how thoroughly they can and do inspect ENTIRELY on land . This cannot be done under 70 miles of sea followed by 5 miles of land at the end under Rossport .

An apples and oranges argument

youtheman

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I know you can use intelligent pigs onshore but from 70 miles out with all the pipes underwater or buried in a bog in Rossport pray tell how ??

The unique problem in Mayo is that the processing terminal is inland , every other country builds these terminals on the coast .

It's like reading a press release from the 'Flat Earth Society'.

I know the old addage "your perception is your reality". And there are people who believe the Corrib will mean the end of the world is nigh. But some of us have to get on with working in the real world. We'll try our best to convince you to relax, but we can only do so much.

My point is simple, Corrib is neither 'unique' nor a 'problem'. It will come on line (eventually), it will run it's course, and we'll all be old and grey and saying 'what was all the fuss about'.

Sponge Bob

youtheman wrote: »

We'll try our best to convince you to relax, but we can only do so much.

You are doing your damndest not to convince anybody of anything but to indulge in a general 'there there it will be all right ' argument .

You have not introduced a single engineering point to the entire argument despite your relying on pseudo engineering arguments on the lines of these things are always done properly by engineers' .

http://www.geoilandgas.com/businesses/ge_oilandgas/en/prod_serv/serv/pipeline/en/downloads/case_history_booklet2.pdf

Interesting reading there for anybody who fancies and not too arcane .

First go to page 7 .

An industrial plant in the United States had
recently installed an 8 in, 12 mi (20 km), natural gas line. After just six months service, leaks caused by external corrosion were found and the pipeline was shut down by the state regulatory agency.

sponge bob q and a session
Who installed this pipeline?
Was it?:
a) a pipeline engineering expert or
b) the tooth fairy ??

The owner called PII Pipeline Solutions, asking for a full turnkey response to the situation as quickly as possible.

The actual inspection took place within two weeks of the first call – but PII was on-site within days cleaning, gauging and installing temporary traps.

Cleaning was a challenge, because the contractors who installed the pipeline had not thoroughly cleaned it before handing it over. The caliper run found restrictions in the form of heavy-walled tees which had to be removed to make the inspection possible.
A MagneScan tool was pumped through with water, and the line was dried following the inspection.

Now how do you introduce these technologies in a 120km long pipeline which starts 1000 feet down in the atlantic ...and how do you 'dry ' the pipe to get accurate data or install temporary traps along the way to catch them PIGs ??

The simple argument is that you CANNOT..or you would show how. You cannot control PIG speed and get consistent data along the entire 120km By the time a PIG reaches Rossport it will be flying and will acquire less data per km travelled than it will at the start of its run .

Therefore the correct engineering argument is that nobody knows for sure and that data quality will be inconsistent given the length of the pipe between pig traps and that is assuming that state of the art pigs can be sent along that pipe at all ...as they can be on land and that traps can be introduced on land to control pig speeds to get accurate data .

No such installation is proposed at Glengad beach right now or out in the bay where a controlled pig insertion may be executed and where a diversity of pigs can be deployed to deliver precise data on the condition of particular section of the pipe which is of most concern.

So please answer technical points technically from now on instead of indulging in this overweening superciliousness which is, after all, largely what got us into this shell farce in the first place

youtheman

Sponge Bob. This argument is going no where. You're a dab hand at the auld Google, but you seem to take everything at face value.

First of all let me tell you that I don't have access to the Corrib pipeline design drawinmgs, so I cannot tell you if there are pig facilities fitted. Maybe you can. I doubt if the offshore section has these fitted, but maybe the onshore section has. But to get the real answer you would need to go to the Shell PIMS document (Pipeline Integrity Management Scheme) document and this will detail how they plan to inspect and maintain the pipeline. You can be guaranteed that all the answere are here. So we can both surmise all we like, chances are we both don't have the full picture.

I take exception to your statement that you can't control pig speeds. It's quite easy. It's done all the time. It's just a matter of controlling the pressure and the volumentric flow rate, and this equates to gas flow rate (the pig travels at the gas flow rate).

Your emotive statement that a pig would be 'flying' just shows your total lack of knowledge of the subject.

Sponge Bob

So you read the PIMS and have a link handy for me like I had links handy for any assertion I made ??

The pipeline will be at its 345 bar original pressure until it comes ashore on Glengad where a valve station will be built.

Detailed schematics of the valve station are unavailable as Shell had not troubled the Bord Pleanala with them . I suspect that a pig coasting along at high pressure will need to be trapped thereabouts . A lower pressure pig should be introduced there to do the onshore leg ...more slowly and with more detail . That would be good, we don't know though do we ??

And absent a plan what is An Bord Pleanala agreeing to ??

Nor can a plan for a pig trap at the end of a 345 bar pipe on a beach in Mayo be evaluated in isolation from a corresponding Pig Launcher 110 km out in the Atlantic, can it send dumb pigs or smart pigs which latter pigs can monitor the condition of the pipe ?

Will the pig slow down out in the bay and carry on to Bellinaboy at lower pressure , we don't know. Will they be covered in ****e and operating less effectively by then ?? we don't know .

By now we should know exactly what the engineers propose , and why .
As long as this shifty attitude prevails the whole thing stinks given its history .

Robbo

Remind me again of the ma-hoo-sive profits Shell intend to make from blowing North Mayo to oblivion?

Fun and all as it would be.

airgeadlamh

youtheman wrote: »

It's like reading a press release from the 'Flat Earth Society'.

I know the old addage "your perception is your reality". And there are people who believe the Corrib will mean the end of the world is nigh. But some of us have to get on with working in the real world. We'll try our best to convince you to relax, but we can only do so much.

My point is simple, Corrib is neither 'unique' nor a 'problem'. It will come on line (eventually), it will run it's course, and we'll all be old and grey and saying 'what was all the fuss about'.

At the oral hearing on 3rd June, John Purvis (Principal Pipeline Engineer for Shell) stated that all pipelines are unique. Under cross questioning from Nigel Wright (pipeline expert for An Bord Pleanala) he admitted there were no comparable pipelines in Ireland or the UK.

Zzippy

Robbo wrote: »

Remind me again of the ma-hoo-sive profits Shell intend to make from blowing North Mayo to oblivion?

Fun and all as it would be.

When that happens they have negotiated a payment from the government to compensate them for loss of earnings. This payment will be more than offset by the savings to the exchequer in dole money paid to the thousands of unemployed (now vaporised ) living in the area. The plan is to roll out this project nationwide and solve the unemployment problem. Win win situation...

youtheman

airgeadlamh wrote: »

At the oral hearing on 3rd June, John Purvis (Principal Pipeline Engineer for Shell) stated that all pipelines are unique. Under cross questioning from Nigel Wright (pipeline expert for An Bord Pleanala) he admitted there were no comparable pipelines in Ireland or the UK.

Of course all pipelines are 'unique'. Every reservoir is unique, so every pipeline has to be designed for the unique conditions. You just use the standard codes and guidelines and at the end it will tell you the exact pipe parameters required (pipeline design is not a new or black art).

And I'm not surprised there are no comparable pipelines in Ireland or the UK. But what about the rest of the world. You can be guaranteed that there are longer pipelines, bigger pipelines, higher operating pressure pipelines, deeper pipelines, more corrosive pipelines etc.

If you look at other industries, very few are trying to build shorter bridges, or slower cars or less efficient engines. Just because someone is trying something 'new' doesn't mean it is automatically more dangerous. The laws of physics don't change. And that's what I'm used to dealing with.

Sponge Bob

youtheman wrote: »

The laws of physics don't change. And that's what I'm used to dealing with.

They don't , we agree on something .

Someone PM'd me the pipe schematic for the Glengad 'Valve ' station and it does not contain a Pig Launcher ( inland) or a Pig Trap ( from the sea) .

No wonder an bord pleanala refused to allow the damn thing .

asahi

youtheman wrote: »

And I'm not surprised there are no comparable pipelines in Ireland or the UK. But what about the rest of the world. You can be guaranteed that there are longer pipelines, bigger pipelines, higher operating pressure pipelines, deeper pipelines, more corrosive pipelines etc.

That go through residential areas? Past schools and roads through bogs that have a history of sliding? Carrying untreated gas straight from the sea bed?

Maybe you could tell us where this has been tried before?

fuzzsc00ta

This thread isn't about the pipeline. It's about Shell to Sea's behaviour at a community protest that they had (as far as I can tell) nothing to do with. Can it be split please?

I tend to believe Tommy Flaherty's version of events. Fair play to him for speaking up.

Sponge Bob

I agree , chuck the pipeline bits into the infrastructure forum and we'll see if the Mods fancy it. Essentially it is about lying and obfuscating at a strategic infrastructure hearing