Practical Application of API 1149 and 1155

Dan Nagala UTSI Joey Verret LOOP LLC

Presentation Overview
LOOP Leak Detection Study Background API 1149 Overview API 1149 Application to LOOP Pipeline API 1155 Overview API 1155 Application to LOOP Project Conclusions

What is LOOP?
Louisiana Offshore Oil Port
Supertanker offloading facility located 18 miles off the Louisiana coast in the Gulf of Mexico ! 45 mile long 48 diameter pipeline ! Underground storage onshore in salt dome caverns ! Delivery to various refineries
!

LOOP Main Oil Line

Marine Terminal
Flow Underground Storage Fourchon Booster Temperature Caverns Station Pressure Density + 115 ft Viscosity Flow Air Temp. Temperature Temperature Temperature Pressure Pressure Pressure

Sea Level Water Temp. - 1 ft

Ground Temp.

+ 6 ft

- 117 ft

Water Temp.

21 miles

24 miles

LOOP Pipeline Operations

48 different crude oil types API gravity range of 20 to 50 Viscosity range of 2-300 centipoise Batch temperature range of 62 to 120 deg. F 60,000 bbl/hr avg. flow rate (89,000 max) 580 psi platform discharge pressure Five 16-in. and two 10-in. turbine meters Each meter is proved twice daily

Leak Detection Study Background

Legacy Leak Detection System
Modest Sensitivity ! Frequent False Alarms ! Poor Operator Interface ! Lack of Analytical Tools
!

Results: Pipeline Controllers Loss of Confidence in System

Background
Feasibility Study
!

API 1149 utilized to

Project improvement of pipeline leak detection performance ! Justify further investment and investigation
!

API 1155 utilized to

!

Determine actual system performance on the LOOP Pipeline from a set of available systems on the market

API 1149 Overview

Theoretical analysis of detectable leak sizes Attempts to quantify what effects variable uncertainties have on Leak Detection performance based on:
! !

Pipeline physical characteristics Instrumentation accuracy

Assumes Mass-Balance technique Most applicable to steady-state flow Assumes simplistic transient operations Results can vary based on coefficients used to determine uncertainties

1149 Assumptions
LD Sensitivity > Flow Measurement Uncertainty + Linefill Uncertainty Steady-State Flow
!

Transient Flow
!

Flow measurement uncertainty Pressure and temperature uncertainty along pipeline

Additional linefill uncertainty caused by a specific transient

1149 Equation
Qleak rate Qpipeline flowrate

& Linefill Uncertainty # Flowin Uncertainty 2 + Flowout Uncertainty 2 + $ ! Time Flowrate % "

Observations:
Flow Uncertainty is constant over time ! Linefill Uncertainty diminishes over time (uncertainties due to inaccurate pressure and temperature profiles along the pipeline)
!

1149 Equation
Qleak rate Qpipeline flowrate

& Linefill Uncertainty # Flowin Uncertainty 2 + Flowout Uncertainty 2 + $ ! Time Flowrate % "

Therefore:
!

Short-term: LD sensitivity is more dependent on

meter accuracy and the degree you can accurately determine temperature* and pressure along the linefill

Long-term: LD sensitivity converges to meter

accuracy

API 1149 Coefficient Comparisons

Leak Detection Sensitivity Flow Uncertainty 0.0003 Temp Uncertainy 0.35 Press Uncertainty 2.6
1149 Tr ansient 1149 Steady State

Leak Detection Sensitivity Flow Uncertainty 0.0003 Temp Uncertainy 2.0 Press Uncertainty 2.6
1149 Transient 1149 Steady State

M i ni mum De t ect i on T i me

Detectable Leak Size

Minim um De te ction Tim e

Leak Detection Sensitivity Flow Uncertainty 0.002 Temp Uncertainy 0.35 Press Uncertainty 2.6
1149 Tr ansi ent 1149 Steady State

Leak Detection Sensitivity Flow Uncertainty 0.0003 Temp Uncertainy 0.35 Press Uncertainty 10.0
1149 Transient 1149 Steady State

M in imum D et e c t ion T ime

Mi ni mum Det ect i on T i me

Performance Projection
Legacy leak detection system performance compared to 1149 calculated performance

Leak Detection Sensitivity

1149 Transient 1149 St eady St at e LOOP Legacy Leak Det

In c re a s in g L e a k S iz e

Increasing Detection Time

API 1155 Overview

Standardized process for the evaluation of Software Based Leak Detection Systems Off-line model based analysis of leak detection performance Based on physical pipeline characteristics and actual operating data collected from the pipeline operations Analysis limited to a manageable subset of the pipeline network

Process Fundamentals
Six steps executed in part by the pipeline company and by one or more software vendors
1. Gather information and define the physical pipeline characteristics 2. Collect data samples and build case files 3. Specify performance metrics 4. Transmit information to vendors for evaluation 5. Perform data analysis (vendor) 6. Interpret vendor results

Step 1. Gather Information and Define the Physical Pipeline Characteristics

Characterize the pipeline

! !

Detailed definition of the pipeline topology through a keyword oriented definition file Contains a structured definition of a single pipeline, network of pipelines or subset of the network General Syntax
!

Keyword, followed by specific information related to the keyword

Step 1. Gather Information and Define the Physical Pipeline

Benefits:
Provides one standard format for pipeline characterization for all vendors Keyword format is comprehensive and robust

Challenges:
Data collection can be time-consuming Booster station configuration was tedious Vendor compatible data formats (metering data)

2. Collect Data Samples and Build Case Files Each data set is defined by two files produced by the pipeline company
!

Case File - Informational Read Me file containing a description of the operational data contained in the data file and its relationship to the configuration Data File - Block or sequentially ordered ASCII text file containing captured (or simulated) data which is representative of actual pipeline operations
!

24 Hours minimum per sample set, 48+ recommended

2. Collect Data Samples and Build Case Files

Benefits:
Only one set of data files is needed for all vendors

Challenges:
Data collection software required Identifying appropriate operational windows Data integrity ! timestamps ! correction factors ! consistency (system updates) Leak simulation

3. Specify Performance Metrics

Specification of pipeline companys desired or expected levels of leak detection performance Grouped into four performance classifications

Reliability Accuracy Sensitivity Robustness

Performance Metrics Reliability

Consistency of system to alarm actual leaks Consistency of system to minimize false alarms Critical to maintain operator confidence

Accuracy
Ancillary information such as leak location, leak rate and total volume lost Important information for notifications and response planning

Performance Metrics Sensitivity

Quantitative measure in terms of detection time versus leak size Provides a baseline performance curve

Robustness
A measure of the leak detection systems ability to continue to function and provide useful information, even under changing conditions of pipeline operation, or under other less than ideal operating conditions

LOOPs Performance Metric Ranking

Metric Reliability Sensitivity Robustness Accuracy Priority 1 2 3 4

4. Transmit Information to Vendors for Evaluation

ASCII text files 24 hour duration on the average Six (6) different operational scenarios Internet e-mail used for delivery

5. Perform Data Analysis (Vendor)

Review the configuration, case file(s), and data set(s) prepared by the pipeline company Import the configuration into their model(s) Tune the model with pipeline data samples Perform studies on all pipeline data sets and cases Demonstrate performance and discuss anomalies Prepare final report describing analysis results and expected level of achievable performance

5. Perform Data Analysis (Vendor)

Problems Encountered: Flow rate data spikes Product identification data

6. Interpret Vendor Results

Visit each vendor to witness application execution
! !

Provides an opportunity for the vendor to discuss analysis difficulties and data anomalies face-to-face Helps the pipeline company understand the complexities of each system under consideration, and to see the application and its analysis tools in action on real data

Conduct visits after the vendors draft report is completed, but before a final version delivered

6. Interpret Vendor Results

Simulation runs of each data set Determine sensitivity across all operational conditions

Interpret Vendor Results

API 1149 Legacy System

Leak Size

Vendor 1 Vendor 2 Vendor 3

Detection Time

Interpret Vendor Results

Benefits:
Identified system enhancements needed for certain operational conditions
! ! ! ! !

Data timestamps Meter flow rate calculations PLC data filtering Product data requirements Projected degree of enhanced leak detection sensitivity for incremental improvements in instrumentation accuracy

Interpret Vendor Results

Vendor Scorecard
Vendor A 4 5 4 3 4 4 4 4 5 3 4 29 3 4 2 3 3 3 2 3 19 Priority 1 2 3 --------4 5 ----Totals Category Operator Ease of Use Maintenance Performance (Overall) Sensitivity Accuracy Reliability Robustness Ease of Installation Relative Cost Support & Analysis Tools Confidence -----Vendor B 2 3 3 5 5 5 5 2 2 4 4 23 Vendor C 3 3 5

Summary of Vendor Ranking Based on LOOP Criteria (5 = Best/Most Desirable, 1 = Worst/Least Desirable)

Final Vendor Selection

API 1155 should not be used as a vendor selection and contracting tool because:
! !

Does not contain any project requirements specification Does not contain any structure for solicitation of bids

Assuming that one or more methodologies are found to be appropriate for the subject pipeline(s)
!

Define the Leak Detection Project scope in terms of implementation and delivery requirements Solicit firm proposals from vendors, select and contract

Final Sensitivity Comparisons

Leak Detection Sensitivity

LOOP Legacy Leak Det 1149 Transient 1149 Steady State New LOOP Leak Det

In c r e a s in g L e a k S i z e

Increasing Detection Time

Conclusions
API 1149 Benefits:
Aids in the understanding of the effects of instrument uncertainties to leak detection Relatively quick method to determine a very rough estimate of of mass-balance leak detection performance that can be achieved based on specific pipeline parameters and instrumentation Results can be useful in gaining confidence in vendor estimates of achievable performance

Conclusions
API 1149 Shortcomings:
Only considers leak detection via mass balance technique More applicable to steady-state than to transient operating regimes Only considers very basic transient estimation Results are based on a theoretical estimation of leak detection based on accumulation of measurement uncertainties Results can vary based on coefficients used to determine uncertainties, therefore should only be used as a basis for further, specific leak detection system testing

Conclusions
Benefits: API 1155
Standard format for pipeline characterization Data sets represent true pipeline operation Customer gets demonstrable performance projections Substantial system configuration is complete
! !

pipeline configuration data

Operations related system enhancements can be identified in advance Project implementation costs can be more accurately determined

Conclusions
API 1155 Shortcomings:
Pipeline data configuration is time-consuming Amount of work required of vendors Test execution costly if many vendors are involved May not be cost effective for a single pipeline