Riser & pipeline release frequencies

8/7/2019 Riser & pipeline release frequencies

1/18

Risk Assessment Data Directory

Report No. 434 4

March 2010

I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f O i l & G a s P r o d u c e r s

Riser &pipelinerelease

frequencies


2/18

Publications

Global experience

Te International Association o Oil & Gas Producers has access to a wealth o technicalknowledge and experience with its members operating around the world in many diferentterrains. We collate and distil this valuable knowledge or the industry to use as guidelines

or good practice by individual members.

Consistent high quality database and guidelines

Our overall aim is to ensure a consistent approach to training, management and best prac-tice throughout the world.

Te oil and gas exploration and production industry recognises the need to develop consist-ent databases and records in certain elds. Te OGPs members are encouraged to use theguidelines as a starting point or their operations or to supplement their own policies and

regulations which may apply locally.

Internationally recognised source of industry information

Many o our guidelines have been recognised and used by international authorities andsaety and environmental bodies. Requests come rom governments and non-governmentorganisations around the world as well as rom non-member companies.

Disclaimer

Whilst every e ort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication,neither the OGP nor any of its members past present or future warrants its accuracy or will, regardlessof its or their negligence, assume liability for any foreseeable or unforeseeable use made thereof, whichliability is hereby excluded. Consequently, such use is at the recipients own risk on the basis that any useby the recipient constitutes agreement to the terms of this disclaimer. e recipient is obliged to informany subsequent recipient of such terms.

is document may proide guidance supplemental to the requirements of local legislation. Nothingherein, however, is intended to replace, amend, supersede or otherwise depart om such requirements. Inthe event of any conict or contradiction between the proisions of this document and local legislation,applicable laws shall prevail.

Copyright notice

e contents of these pages are e International Association of Oil and Gas Producers. Permission

is given to reproduce this report in whole or in part proided (i) that the copyright of OGP and (ii)the source are acknowledged. All other rights are reserved. Any other use requires the prior writtenpermission of the OGP.

ese Terms and Conditions shall be goerned by and construed in accordance with the laws of Eng-land and Wales. Disputes arising here om shall be exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of the courts ofEngland and Wales.


3/18

RADD Riser & pipeline release frequencies

OGP 1

contents

1.0 Scope and Definitions ........................................................... 1 1.1 Application ...................................................................................................... 11.2 Definitions ....................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Summary of Recommended Data............................................ 2 3.0 Guidance on use of data ........................................................ 3 3.1 General validity ............................................................................................... 33.2 Uncertainties ...................................................................................................33.3 Application of frequencies to specific pipelines ......................................... 33.3.1 Offshore pipelines...................................................................................................... 43.3.2 Onshore pipelines ...................................................................................................... 6

3.4 Application to pipelines conveying fluids other than hydrocarbons ........ 6

4.0 Review of data sources ......................................................... 6 4.1 Basis of data presented ................................................................................. 64.1.1 Risers and offshore pipelines ................................................................................... 64.1.2 Onshore gas pipelines ............................................................................................... 84.1.3 Onshore oil pipelines................................................................................................. 9

4.2 Other data sources ....................................................................................... 10

5.0 Recommended data sources for further information ............ 116.0 References .......................................................................... 116.1 References for Sections 2.0 to 4.0 .............................................................. 11

6.2 References for other data sources.............................................................. 11


4/18


OGP2

Abbreviations:

AGA American Gas Association

ANSI American National Standards InstituteAPI American Petroleum Institute

ASME American Society of Mechanical EngineersCONCAWE Conservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe

DNV Det Norske VeritasDOT (US) Department of TransportationEGIG European Gas Pipeline Incident Data GroupESDV Emergency Shutdown ValvePARLOC Pipeline And Riser Loss Of Containment

UK HSE United Kingdom Health and Safety ExecutiveUKOPA United Kingdom Pipeline Operators Association

VIV Vortex Induced Vibration


5/18


OGP 1

1.0 Scope and Definitions1.1 Application

This datasheet presents (Section 2.0) frequencies of riser and pipeline releases.Frequencies for offshore and onshore pipelines are included.

The frequencies given are based on analysis for pipelines conveying hydrocarbons.They may be applied to pipelines conveying other fluids as discussed in Section 3.4.

1.2 Definitions

The pipeline frequencies are given for four different sections as shown in Figure 1.1.

Risers are considered to comprise three sections:

Above water (often taken to be the topsides section below the riser ESDV)

Splash zone (exposed to aggressive corrosion conditions and ship collisions) Below water (to the flange connection with the pipeline or a spool piece)

Figure 1.1 Definition of Pipeline Sections

For offshore sections, frequencies are given for steel and flexible risers and pipelines.

Flexible should be understood in the context of the source data (see Section 4.1.1),which is from the North Sea. It therefore includes risers from FPSOs, TLPs andsemisubmersibles but would not include deepwater technologies such as steel catenary

risers. These are a specialist and relatively new area, and the failure frequency analysisshould accordingly be undertaken utilising suitable expertise.


6/18


OGP2

2.0 Summary of Recommended DataThe recommended frequencies and associated data are presented as follows:

Table 2.1 Recommended Riser and Pipelines failure Frequencies Table 2.2 Recommended Hole Size Distributions for Risers and Pipelines

Table 2.3 Release Location Distribution for Risers

Note that separate failure frequencies are not given for Segment III, Landfall zone. This

segment, representing the tidal zone, is defined as the area where the pipeline may bewet and dry at different times. This allows the anode system to function. Onshorepipelines are often more affected by corrosion than pipelines in the tidal zone. Hencefrequencies for onshore pipelines should be used in tidal zones. A pipeline in thelandfall zone may also be subject to increased risk of external impact, e.g. due to

grounding ships. Such risks may have to be assessed separately.

Table 2.1 Recommended Riser and Pipelines failure FrequenciesPipeline Category Failurefrequency Unit

Well stream pipeline and othersmall pipelines containingunprocessed fluid

5.0 10-4

per km-year

Processed oil or gas, pipelinediameter 24 inch

5.1 10-5

per km-year

Subsea pipeline:in open sea

Processed oil or gas, pipelinediameter > 24 inch

1.4 10-5

per km-year

Diameter 16 inch 7.9 10-4

per yearSubsea pipeline:

external loads causingdamage in safety zone Diameter > 16 inch 1.9 10

-4per year

Flexible pipelines:subsea

All 2.3 10-3

per km-year

Steel - diameter 16 inch 9.1 10-4

per year

Steel diameter > 16 inch 1.2 10-4

per year

Risers

Flexible 6.0 10-3

per year

Diameter < 8 inch 1.0 10-3

per km-year

8 inch diameter 14 inch 8.0 10-4

per km-year


per km-year


per km-year

Oil pipelines onshore

Diameter > 28 inch 2.5 10-4

per km-year

Wall thickness 5 mm 4.0 10-4

per km-year

5 mm < wall thickness 10 mm 1.7 10-4

per km-year

10 mm < wall thickness 15mm

8.1 10-5

per km-year

Gas pipelines onshore

Wall thickness > 15 mm 4.1 10-5

per km-year


7/18


OGP 3

Table 2.2 Recommended Hole Size Distributions for Risers and PipelinesOnshore pipelineHole size Subseapipeline Gas Oil

RiserSmall (< 20 mm) 74% 50% 23% 60%

Medium (20 to 80 mm) 16% 18% 33% 15%

Large (> 80 mm) 2% 18% 15%

Full rupture 8% 14% 29%25%

Table 2.3 Release Location Distribution for RisersRelease location DistributionAbove water 20%

Splash zone 50%

Subsea 30%

3.0 Guidance on use of data3.1 General validity

The frequencies given are based on analysis for pipelines conveying hydrocarbons.They may be applied to pipelines conveying other fluids as discussed in Section 3.4.

There is an implicit assumption that the pipelines are built to a recognized internationalstandard such as ANSI/ASME B31.4/8 [1,2] or (for subsea pipelines) DNV-OS-F101 [3].

3.2 Uncertainties

In addition to the known causes of fluid release from transport pipelines, as discussed

in Section 4.0, new or unforeseen factors may cause shutdown of pipelines. It isimpossible to estimate the contribution from such incidents to the release frequencies,neither is it possible to state that it is more likely that some pipelines will sustain failurebefore others. Accordingly, unknown factors cannot be used either to identify pipelineswhich are especially exposed to the possibility of leakage or to prioritize risk mitigationmeasures.

3.3 Application of frequencies to specific pipelinesIn Table 2.1, most frequencies are given per km-year as they are dependent on thelength of the pipeline. For a typical pipeline of length (km) with release frequency fkm,the release frequency Falong the full length of the pipeline is simply given by:

F = fkm per year:

There are several causes that can result in the release frequency for a specific pipeline,

or for a section of a pipeline, being different from that obtained simply using the Section2.0 frequencies.


8/18


OGP4

In general there are two main groups of causes causing pipeline failures. The firstgroup is related to loads exceeding pipeline critical loads, usually resulting in anisolated incident. The second group is related to effects gradually weakening thepipeline over a period of time. Those considered here are:

Isolated incidents offshore Mechanisms acting over time offshore

Loads from trawl boards Corrosion Ship anchor / sinking ship Open spans causing fatigue Subsea landslide BucklingIsolated incidents onshore Mechanisms acting over time onshore External interference e.g. digging Construction defect

Hot-tap made by error Material failure

Ground movement e.g. landslide Ground movement e.g. mining Corrosion

These are discussed further in Sections 3.3.1 (offshore pipelines) and 3.3.2 (onshorepipelines), with some guidance given on modifying the Section 2.0 frequencies.However, in situations where several of these causes pertain or critical decisions aredependent on the analysis results, a detailed analysis should be carried out utilising

appropriate expertise and data specific to the situation. Such analysis is beyond thescope of this datasheet.

3.3.1 Offshore pipelines

Where none of the additional causes listed in Section 3.3 that could exacerbate thelikelihood of a release are present, the release frequency can be reduced by 50%.

On pipeline sections where loads from trawl boards pose a threat, it is suggested thatfrequencies could be up to a factor of 5 higher (see Section 3.3.1.1).

On pipeline sections where the other causes pose a threat, it is suggested thatfrequencies could be up to a factor of 2 higher (see Sections 3.3.1.2 to 3.3.1.5).

3.3.1.1 Loads from trawl boards

Pipelines located in areas where trawling activity takes place may be damaged.Pipelines are normally dimensioned to withstand loads from a trawl, such as impacts,overdraw1 or hook up2. The pipe wall is normally covered by a concrete coating givingprotection against local impact loads to the pipeline, and it gives the pipeline the

necessary weight to gain stability.

Overdraw and hook ups can initiate buckling of the pipeline. Free spans will exacerbate

the effect of trawl impacts.

A trawl can also catch other equipments such as exposed flanges and bolts, and a trawlhook up may cause pipeline fracture on smaller pipelines.

1Overdraw is a situation where the trawl board comes in under the pipeline and is drawn over

applying force sideways.2Hook up is a situation where the trawl board gets stuck beneath the pipeline. The pipeline may

be damaged if the vessel tries to bring in the trawl.


9/18


OGP 5

Trawling with lump weights is a relatively new practice and consequently most pipelinesare not designed to tackle such loads. Even though no serious damage due to lumpweights has yet been registered, it is still uncertain what consequences boom trawl andlump weights may cause.

3.3.1.2 Ship anchor / impact from sinking ships

Pipelines located in areas with shipping traffic may be damaged by anchors getting hold

of the pipeline, or a sinking ship hitting the line. The relevant factors include shippingtraffic density, distance from shore or port, water depth, vessel traffic surveillance.

3.3.1.3 Material left behind from war years

If a pipeline is laid through coastal areas that were mined during war years, there maystill be material present that poses a threat to the pipeline even if these areas were

cleared before installation of the pipeline.

3.3.1.4 Fatigue (mainly due to free spans)

Free spans can result in fatigue if the span is excited by current, and the pipeline can

fracture relatively quickly. Some spans develop as the soil beneath the pipeline iswashed away, and an already existing span may evolve quickly since the free spansinfluence local currents near the pipeline.

Only one example, from China, is known to be caused by free spans. The incident was

caused by extreme climatic conditions (2 following cyclones) and the free span waslonger than what the pipeline was designed for. Vortex Induced Vibration (VIV) has

caused leakages in the past, but todays pipelines are designed to resist the associatedstress.

3.3.1.5 Buckling

Buckling (bends) may occur if the pipeline is prevented from extension forced by

pressure tension in the axial direction. This can cause buckling sideways or upwards.Some pipelines are designed to allow for a controlled buckling to relieve axial tension. Itis important that the buckling takes place over a long distance. In extremelydisadvantaged situations, when the buckling is very local, great strain may be placed onthe pipeline. The consequence may be pipeline leakage and subsequent replacement.Buckling will normally occur during the first years of operation when temperatures are

at their highest, but may occur if operational conditions are changed, new connectionsof pipeline or new compressor stations.

3.3.1.6 Material damage/failures

If there are indications of pipelines being especially exposed to a specific type of failure,

then corrections should be made utilising suitable engineering expertise. Typicalcorrection factors would be in the range 2 to 3, applied to the contribution from the

specific failure mechanism affected; expert engineering judgment should be used todetermine a suitable factor.


10/18


OGP6

3.3.1.7 Fluid medium

Both wet and dry gas should be properly processed to avoid corrosion or keepcorrosion under control. For example, control and monitoring techniques of thepipelines operated by Norwegian companies is considered to be so good that wet gaspipelines do not have a higher probability of corrosion than the dry gas pipelines. The

same applies to processed gas. Hence in general no correction need be applied forfluid medium. However, if it is known that the control techniques in place or planned do

not meet current best practice, then a correction should be made in the same way asdescribed for material damage/failures (Section 3.3.1.6).

3.3.2 Onshore pipelines

The EGIG and CONCAWE reports [7,8] give breakdowns of release frequencies by causeand release size. These are partially reproduced in Sections 4.1.2 (gas pipelines) and4.1.3 (oil pipelines), and further data are available in the EGIG and CONCAWE reports.

These sources of information could be used to obtain more location specific estimatesof the release frequencies. However, in situations where several of these causes pertainor critical decisions are dependent on the analysis results, a detailed analysis should becarried out utilising appropriate expertise and data specific to the situation. Such

analysis is beyond the scope of this datasheet.

3.4 Application to pipelines conveying fluids other than hydrocarbons

Certain non hydrocarbon fluids can increase the likelihood of failure through specificmechanisms. For example, under certain circumstances ammonia may cause stresscorrosion cracking, increasing the contributions from internal and external corrosion.

In the first European Benchmark Study, DNV [5] estimated a factor-of-3 increase in thesecontributions to the overall failure frequency. As already discussed in Section 3.3.1, thefactor should be estimated using expert engineering judgment.

4.0 Review of data sources4.1 Basis of data presented

4.1.1 Risers and offshore pipelines

The frequencies and distributions presented in Section 2.0 for risers and offshorepipelines are derived from DNVs re-analysis [6] of the data presented in PARLOC 2001

[4]. The re-analysis was performed because of recognised errors in the frequenciesgiven in PARLOC 2001 itself.

Table 4.1 presents the data used as the basis of the analysis.

Allocation of failures to failure mechanisms vary according to source. Table 4.2indicates how much different mechanisms contribute to the overall failure frequency.This can be used to determine how specific features of the pipeline design may affect

the frequency. Section 3.3 provides some general guidance that is not dependent onfailure mechanism. Expert judgment should be used where the likelihood of failure by aspecific mechanism is affected by specific features of the pipeline design (see Section3.3.1).


11/18


OGP 7

Table 4.1 Incident and Population Data for Offshore Pipelines from [4]Pipeline description No. ofreleases Exposure timeWell stream pipelines and othersmall pipelines containingunprocessed fluid, diameter 16inch

3060033 km-years10576 pipe-years

Well stream pipelines and othersmall pipelines containingunprocessed fluid, diameter > 16inch

336925 km-years(pipe-years notavailable)

Processed oil or gas pipeline,diameter 24 inch


Processed oil or gas pipeline,diameter > 24 inch


External load causing pipelinedamage

1, diameter 24 inch

7 8836 years

External load causing pipelinedamage

1, diameter > 24 inch

0.72

3734 years

Steel riser, diameter< 16 inch 10 10979 riser-years

Flexible pipeline11


Steel riser, diameter > 16 inch 0.72

5937 riser-years

Flexible riser 5 5 riser-years

Notes

1. Applies to near platform zone2. No releases to date; estimate using standard statistical techniques.

Table 4.2: Allocation of Failure Mechanisms from [4]: Offshore Pipelines,All DiametersFailure mechanism DistributionCorrosion 36%

Material 13%

External loads causing damage 38%

Construction damage 2%

Other 11%

Note: This is a summary. The distribution varies betweenhole sizes. For further information refer to the sourcereport [4].

Table 4.3: Hole Size Distribution for Offshore Pipelines from [4]Number of releasesHole size

Pipelines RisersSmall (< 20 mm) 37 9

Medium (20 to 80 mm) 8 2Large (> 80 mm) 1 4


12/18


OGP8

Full rupture 4

Total 50 15

4.1.2 Onshore gas pipelines

The frequencies presented in Section 2.0 for onshore gas pipelines are based on datafrom EGIGs most recently available report [7]. The EGIG database spans the period1970-2004; it includes 1123 incidents on pipelines with a total exposure ofapproximately 2.77 million km-years. It shows an average incident frequency over thisperiod of 4.1 10

-4 per km-year and an average over the period 2000-2004 of 1.7 10-4

per km-year.

Table 4.4 reproduces the breakdown of failures by cause given in the EGIG report [7].

Table 4.4: Allocation of Failure Mechanisms from [7]: Onshore GasPipelines, All Diameters / Wall ThicknessesFailure mechanism DistributionExternal interference 49.7%

Construction defect / Materialfailure

16.7%

Corrosion 15.1%

Ground movement 7.1%

Hot-tap made in error 4.6%

Other/unknown 6.7%

The report also presents a graph showing the frequencies by cause separately for threesizes of failure:

Pinhole/crack: diameter of hole 20 mm.

Hole: 20 mm diameter of hole pipeline diameter

Rupture: hole diameter > pipeline diameter

The report presents more detailed frequencies for each of the causes listed above.Those showing the dependence of the frequencies of failure due to external interferenceand corrosion on pipeline wall thickness have been used to derive the frequenciespresented in Section 2.0 for pipelines with a wall thickness up to 15 mm. For thicker

walled pipes, it has been assumed that the frequency is 50% of that for pipelines with awall thickness of 10 15 mm based on the trend with diameter.

Wall thickness rather than pipeline diameter has been found to be the most significantfactor in determining pipeline failure rates. To some extent it is dependent on diameter,

so accordingly some dependence on diameter is implicit in the data presented.

Based on the rolling 5-year average total frequencies presented in the report, it hasbeen assumed that current frequencies are approximately 50% of the 1970-2004average. The frequencies in Section 2.0 include this trend factor.

The report contains more detailed analysis of pipeline failure rate dependencies than is

presented here, addressing:

External interference: pipeline diameter, depth of cover and wall thickness


13/18


OGP 9

Construction defect / Material failure: year of construction

Corrosion: year of construction, type of coating and wall thickness

Ground movement: pipeline diameter

Hot-tap made by error: pipeline diameter

Other / unknown: main causes

For more detailed analysis of these factors, reference should be made to the reportdirectly.

4.1.3 Onshore oil pipelines

The frequencies presented in Section 2.0 for onshore oil pipelines are based on data inCONCAWE [8]. The data include 379 failures on pipelines with a total exposure forpipelines containing crude oil and products of approximately 667,000 km-years. Moredetailed analysis has enabled the diameter specific frequencies presented in Section 2.0to be derived.

The CONCAWE report [8] includes a detailed breakdown of failure size and mechanism,partially reproduced in Table 4.5.

Based on the definitions of the failure sizes in the CONCAWE report [8], the hole sizedistribution given in Table 2.2 has been derived as follows:

Pinhole + Fissure: Small (diameter of hole 20 mm.)

Hole: Medium (20 mm diameter of hole 80 mm)

Split: Large (diameter of hole > 80 mm)

Rupture: Rupture (pipeline diameter)

Table 4.5: Allocation of Failure Mechanisms from [8]: Onshore OilPipelines, All Diameters / Wall ThicknessesDistributionFailuremechanism Pinhole Fissure Hole Split Rupture Overall

Total no. of failures 20 21 58 27 50 1761

Percentage of total 12% 12% 34% 16% 29% 100%

Mechanical failure 5% 19% 12% 22% 24% 17%Operational 0% 5% 2% 11% 4% 4%

Corrosion 90% 33% 29% 30% 18% 34%

Natural hazard 0% 5% 2% 11% 2% 3%

Third party 5% 38% 55% 26% 52% 43%

Note 1: Hole size data was only available for 176 out of the 379 failures.


14/18


OGP10

4.2 Other data sources

For risers and offshore pipelines, the PARLOC 2001 data [4] is regarded as the bestsource despite the shortcomings in the report noted in Section 4.1.1. It should be

noted, however, that the previous cycle of 2-yearly revisions has lapsed.

Other data sources from which onshore pipeline failure frequency data can be obtainedincluded:-

1. US Department of Transportation . The US Department of Transportation Officeof Pipeline Safety maintains a database of leaks from hazardous liquid and gaspipelines, together with exposure data. The database covers 800,000 km of pipelines,and is the largest of its kind.

An analysis of the gas transmission and gathering line data was prepared for severalyears for the American Gas Association (AGA) by Batelle (e.g. Jones & Eiber 1989).An analysis of liquid pipeline data was prepared for DOT and API by Keifner &

Associates (Keifner et al 1999).The database itself can be obtained from the DOT website atops.dot.gov/libindex.htm. It includes files of pipeline incidents for natural gastransmission/gathering and distribution lines and liquid lines. Each is split into 1984to date and pre-1984, due to a change in inclusion criteria. Pipeline population data

is available in separate files for each year for 1995-98 for gas transmission/gatheringand distribution lines. Summary statistics, together with population data for liquid

lines since 1986 are at ops.dot.gov/stats.htm.

2. United Kingdom Onshore Pipeline Operators Association (UKOPA) .UKOPA has issued a report (2005) that analyses pipeline product loss incidents inthe UK over the period 1962-2004, covering about 21,700 pipeline km at the end of

2004 and 650,000 km-years pipeline exposure. Products covered are: natural gas(dry), natural gas liquid, ethane, ethylene, propane, propylene, LPG, butane,condensate and crude oil (spiked).

Overall incident frequencies are calculated for 5-year periods. For the whole 43-yearperiod the report presents frequencies by hole size (not related to pipeline diameter),and by cause and size of leak. There is further breakdown by hole size of thefrequencies for external interference and corrosion as follows:

External interference External corrosion

Pipeline diameter Wall thickness class Measured wall thickness Year of construction

Area classification External coating type Type of backfill

3. UK HSE (1999) . This study of the risk from UK gasoline pipelines collected dataon events worldwide involving gasoline leaks from cross country pipelines. The

data were used to determine the likelihood of events such as leaks and fires, andalso to generate consequence models based on the available data. The report

references CONCAWE and US DOT data.

4. UK HSE (2001) . This study specifically addresses third party damage to onshorepipelines, comparing EGIG data and BG Transcos incident database. The latterrepresents nearly 460,000 km-years exposure, with 32 third party incidents, 32 loss

events, and 564 incidents altogether. The third part activity failure model takes into

account such factors as: pipeline diameter, wall thickness and location; depth ofcover; damage prevention measures in place.


15/18


OGP 11

5.0 Recommended data sources for further informationFor further information, the data sources used to develop the release frequenciespresented in Section 2.0 and discussed in Sections 0 and 4.0 should be consulted.These references are shown in bold in Section 6.0.

6.0 References6.1 References for Sections 2.0 to 4.0

1. ANSI/ASME B31.4:2006. Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbons andother Liquids.

2. ANSI/ASME B31.8:2003. Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems.

3. DNV-OS-F101 2000 amended Oct. 2005. Submarine pipeline systems, Offshore

Standard.

4. PARLOC 2001 The Update of Loss of Containment Data for OffshorePipelines , prepared by Mott McDonald for the UK HSE, UKOOA and IP, 2003.5. DNV 1989. Phase 1 Report, CEC Benchmark Study Project HH, Independent Risk

Analysis.

6. DNV 2006. Riser/Pipeline Leak Frequencies, Technical Note T7, rev. 02, unpublishedinternal document.

7. EGIG 2005. 6 th EGIG-report 1970-2004 Gas Pipeline Incidents , 6 th report ofthe European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group, Doc. No. EGIG05.R.0002.8. CONCAWE 2002. Performance of crosscountry oil pipelines in WesternEurope , Report No. 1/02.

6.2 References for other data sources

(US) Department of Transportation. Referops.dot.gov/stats/stats.htm.

((UK) Health and Safety Executive 1999. Assessing the risk from gasoline pipelines in theUnited Kigdom based on a review of historical experience , Contract Research Report210/1999, prepared by WS Atkins Safety & Reliability.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/1999/crr99210.pdf.

(UK) Health and Safety Executive 2001. An assessment of measures in use for gas

pipelines to mitigate against damage caused by third party activity, Contract Research Report372/2001, prepared by WS Atkins Consultants Ltd.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/2001/crr01372.pdf.

UKOPA 2005. Pipeline Product Loss Incidents (1962 - 2004), prepared by Advantica,Report Ref. R 8099, for UKOPA FDMG. http://www.ukopa.co.uk/.


16/18


17/18

For further information and publications,please visit our website at

www.ogp.org.uk


18/18

209-215 Blackfriars RoadLondon SE1 8NLUnited KingdomTelephone: +44 (0)20 7633 0272Fax: +44 (0)20 7633 2350

165 Bd du Souverain

4th FloorB-1160 Brussels, BelgiumTelephone: +32 (0)2 566 9150Fax: +32 (0)2 566 9159

Internet site: www.ogp.org.uk

Documents

Riser & pipeline release frequencies