A Semi-Quantitative Risk Assessment to Support Oil Pipeline Risk-Based Design
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the regulatory phase of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project (Northern Gateway), the Joint Review Panel (JRP) requested information on “how the risk factors resulting from the geotechnical and geographic aspects of the pipeline will be taken into account” and to demonstrate “the integration of risk factors with the environmental and socio-economic consequences from potential hydrocarbon releases”. Furthermore, the JRP required Northern Gateway to identify where a risk-based approach to design would be used to address geotechnical and seismic hazards, valve locations for spill consequence reduction and risk reduction in consequence areas”. [1] To meet this requirement a semi-quantitative risk assessment (SQRA) was undertaken. Risk was defined as a function of probability and consequence, where the probability (expressed as a frequency) of loss of pipe integrity was quantitatively determined and the consequence of failure was qualitatively determined. The frequency of failure was a probabilistic combination of the calculated probability of failure from reliability methods, historical frequencies and assessed geo-hazard failure frequency rates. Consequence scoring was based on intersection of theoretical spills with “consequence areas” for environmental or socio-economic effects Frequency and consequence were then combined to provide risk scoring and ranking. Failure frequencies were developed using reliability methods where appropriate. The use of reliability methods addresses the primary challenge associated with quantifying risk for new pipelines as industry failure statistics are not directly applicable to modern pipeline designs, materials, and operating practices. In the pipeline industry, reliability models exist for the most significant threats, including third-party damage, internal corrosion and external corrosion. In addition, geotechnical threats can be characterized in terms of expected magnitude and associated frequency of occurrence, thereby enabling pipeline reliability to be established for each geo-hazard. Consequence scoring was based on modeling full bore rupture spill scenarios and determining whether these spills would potentially intersect identified “consequence areas”. Over the course of the application and hearing process two SQRA’s were undertaken. Following the filing of the first SQRA, additional measures were included in the pipeline design to reduce the frequency of failure and to reduce potential consequences. This resulted in the calculated overall risk being reduced by a factor of 84%, primarily due to increases in wall thickness resulting in a reduction in the likelihood of 3rd party damage and in a reduction of consequence by an increased number of valves.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it