| flusher |
2009-05-18 00:09 |
An appraisal of underground gas storage technologies and incidents+PDF+
【书名】An appraisal of underground gas storage technologies and incidents,for the development of risk assessment methodology
【作者】D J Evans
【出版日期】2008年
【出版社】--
【文件格式】PDF
【页数】229
【内容简介】This report was commissioned by the Health and Saftey Executive,Bootle.It was requested as
part of their operations to assess the safety issues associated with the underground storage of
natural gas,for which an increasing number of applications to develop such facilities have been
submitted by various operators in the UK.The rising numbers of applications are as a result of
UKCS oil and gas reserves showing rapid decline,to the extent that the UK became a net
importer of gas during 2004.The Government recognises that the UK faces an increasing
dependency on imports,yet has very little gas storage capacity and is,therefore,at a very real
risk of supply shortfalls.It notes that the UK’s capacity to import,transport and store gas and
LNG efficiently has to be improved and this will require greater investment in new,timely and
appropriately sited gas(and LNG)supply infrastructure,part of which is likely to include(safe)
onshore underground(natural)gas storage(UGS)facilities.
The main areas of interest and concern were,therefore,what type of facility might be developed
in the UK and could the stored product escape?If so,what would any likely gas flux rates be and
could the gas reach the surface,endangering populations?This report,therefore,attempts to
summarise the main storage types available in the UK context,what,if any,incidents have
occurred at similar facilities around the world and what were the consequences.A separate
companion report by Quintessa(Watson et al.,2007)provides calculations of possible flux rates
from a number of UK storage scenarios,drawn from the results of this study.The report is aimed
at both non-specialists and specialist readerships and therefore contains brief introductory
material to some of the geological and technical aspects of underground gas(or fuel;UFS)
storage that will already be familiar to the more experienced reader.A series of appendices
provide additional information for the reader interested in or requiring further detail in some
areas.Given the wide-ranging scope of UFS/UGS,this report cannot and does not attempt to
review all topics that might be involved,but where possible,the reader is guided to sources of
further reading.
In the UK context,UGS is of two main potential types:salt cavern(man-made voids)and
depleting oil/gasfields(pore storage).Opposition is raised by local groups to each UGS
application who,quite naturally,fear the repetition of one or two high profile incidents that have
involved small numbers of casualties both in overall total and at individual incidents.The
opposition is raised and the same incidents quoted irrespective of storage type,which is
important when assessing safety issues.
Over 90 years of expertise has now been gained in the technology of UGS,with around 630
UGS facilities(of different types)currently operational worldwide and there is perhaps a need to
put the risks of UGS and UFS into perspective.This is in terms of both actual events and storage
types,and relative to other areas of the energy supply chain.With this in mind,the BGS were
asked by the Health&Safety Executive to provide an independent and impartial review of UFS
and UGS incidents.The review is to assist them in assessing the geological safety and risks of
gas leakage from underground storage facilities when dealing with UK applications to develop
UGS sites.
This study has found 65 reports or accounts of problems encountered at UFS facilities from
mainly America and Western Europe.Few cases have been found reported from Russia or
Eastern Europe,but there is no reason to believe that there have not been incidents,it may be
that they simply have not been reported or have been missed during this extensive search.Of
varying severity and nature,those incidents found have been associated with 9 fatalities,around
62 injured and at least 6700 having been evacuated.The latter statistic does not include the
numbers involved in the evacuation of the village of Knoblauch,25 km west of Berlin,during
the escape of town gas(and carbon monoxide)referred to above.Of the release incidents,15
were accompanied by an explosion and/or fire,10 having occurred at salt cavern facilities.Of the
9 fatalities found reported at 5 UFS incidents,8 were at 4 incidents involving salt caverns in the
USA that were not been limited to just natural gas,but included storage of other hydrocarbons.
The ninth fatality occurred at an aquifer storage facility west of Berlin in the 1960s.The causes,
scale,and severity of the 65 reported problems are described and shown to be extremely variable
in magnitude and nature and dependent upon a combination of many factors.Most typically,
release and accidents arise through failure of man-made infrastructure(including well casings
and completions,pipes,valves and compressors),human error(utilisation of inappropriate and
existing caverns,poor forward planning,poor management or operational practises and a lack of
due diligence by the storage company or operator).One or two problems have resulted from
(extreme)natural events(e.g.seismic activity)that would not be relevant to the UK.
The report also contains reviews of some incidents or developments at oil and gas fields and
operational salt mines(both conventional‘dry mining’and brine extraction)that could have
some bearing or importance to the assessment of risk/hazard in gas storage operations.They
illustrate actual events during operations and that could happen during the development or
operation of gas storage facilities if poor practices are employed or stringent monitoring of
processes is not performed.
Casualty figures from other areas of the energy supply chain,including above ground storage
vessels are reviewed.This allows those figures associated with UGS/UFS to be compared with
other storage environments and parts of the energy supply chain to assess the conclusions of
Bérest et al.(2001)and Bérest&Brouard(2003).These authors state“salt caverns provide one
of the safest answers to the problem of storing large amounts of hydrocarbons”.Pore storage
facilities are associated with even lower incident and casualty rates.Even in urban areas such as
Los Angeles,Chillingar&Endres(2005)concluded“…Underground gas storage,oil and gas
production can be conducted safely if proper procedures are followed.After recognition of the
existing problem,proper safe operating procedures can be easily developed”...
Whilst it is acknowleged that the figures reported here probably represent a minimum(i.e.it is
unlikely that all incidents have been found,or were reported),the figures collated during this
work indicate that UGS has extremely low incident and casualty numbers.Rates several orders
of magnitude greater are reported from other sections of the energy supply chain and which
individually,have often resulted in more deaths than those of not just UGS,but all combined
UFS incidents described here.This includes fatalities arising from the supply of domestic gas in
the UK.
Contrary to public belief,UGS is regarded by other sectors of industry and research as having an
excellent health,safety and environmental record(Lippman&Benson,2003;Imbus&
Christopher,2005).
【附件个数】1
【威望要求】0
阿果石油网旗下站点：石油文库 | 石油资讯 |石油英才 | 石油供求 | 石油搜索
|
|