ln IBP1205_07 | ‘THE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF he a PIPELINE GEOHAZARDS ad Moness Rizkalla', Rodney S. Read” etd Copyright 2007, Instituto Brasileiro de Petréleo e Gis - IBP “This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Pipeline Conference & Exposition 2007, held between 2 and 4 October 2007, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was seleced for presentation by the Technical Commitee ofthe event according tothe information contained in the abstract submitted by the authors). The contents ofthe Technical Paper, as presented, ‘were not reviewed by IBP. The organizers are not supposed to tarslate or correct the Submited papers. The material as i presented, does not necessarily represent Istituto Brasileio de Peto e Cis” opinion, oF that ofits Members or Representatives: ‘Authors conseat tothe publication of this Technical Paper inthe Rlo Pipeline Conferences Exposition 2007 Annals. Abstract Several major new pipeline developments are under consideration worldwide in challenging terrain and sensitive environments. In some cases, the terrain and environment of these projects present designers with a wide array of geohazards representing geological or hydrological threats. For these projects, the systematic identification and effective management of geohazards throughout the life-cycle of the pipeline becomes an important matter for all stakeholders - pipeline owner, regulator and land owners. This paper provides an overview of the range of geohazards that may act on pipelines in more challenging terrain and sensitive environments. A range of assessment methodologies is overviewed before focusing on a semi-quantitative index based approach that is best suited forthe design and early years of operations. The application of this methodology to generate a spatil ranking of susceptibility to geohazards, to inform design decisions, and to guide pipeline integrity management planning during operations is presente. 1. Introduction Pipelines designed to wansport cil and natural gas ere typically characterized as linear components of scographically distributed networks. As such, they may traverse large distances along a relatively narow right-of ay, and may cross a wide variety of geologic and climatic environments depending on thee location and exten. A wide range of geohazards may be encountered in temperate areas. Additionally, pipelines in harsher envionment including auctielsuberti, equatorial, and desert regions may encounter addtional challenges for design, construction and long- term operations. Pipeline characteristics and design criteria are dependant in a large respect on the anticipated loads and ‘operating conditions associated with the pipeline, as well as the regulatory famework and standards in place for a given pipeline project. Both stress- and stran-based design approaches have been successfully employed in areas subject to eohazards. The operating conditions and anticipated stain demand on the pipeline inluence the selestion of pipe Material (ie, steel grade), welding techniques, pipe diameter, pipe wall thickness, pipe coating and a host of other desig, construction and operation specifications. Estimating cumulative strain demand requires an understanding of potential loading mechanisms, and ater factors that may affet the long-term integrity ofa pipeline. Natural hazards of a geological, hydrological or tectonic origin (termed geohazards) constitute a subset of the potentiltheets to which a Pipeline may be exposed. Prudent operators fully ecognize that gechazards have the potential to affect the condition of the pipeline ditch, andthe pipeline right-of way. Material from the right-of-way also has the potential for environmental effects if transported off the right-of way through some natural process (e.2, mass movement or erosion). Multiple geohazards at 2 given location may act independently, may offset one another, oF may reinforce one another in terms of effec on the three main pipeline elements (ve, the pipe, the ditch, and the rightofavay). Consequently, «rational systematic approach is required to iemity where geohazards may occu, where ruiple geohazaris may overlap, and what the relative effets ofthese independent and combined gechazards may be on the three main pipeline elements This paper presents an inventory of potential geohazards that may act on pipelines worklwide, and an overview ofthe range of geohazard assessment approaches suited throughout the lifecycle ofa pipeline. An extended discussion is provided of the semiquantitative index based approaches to geabazard assessments that are typically best suited for the design and early years of operations of gren field pipelines “Master of Civil Engineering, Principal Consultant ~ VIA+ ? Ph.D. Civil and Geological Engineering, Principal Consultant ~ RSREAD CONSULTING INC.Ri Pipeline Conference & Exposition 2007 2. Inventory of Potential Geohazards For a given projec, itis important to focus on eredible probable geohazards within the pipeline corridor that may directly affect the three main pipeline elements. Some ofthese geohazards may constitute environmental loads and cifects triggered by pipeline installation and/or operations. Chain of event triggers or contributing factors that may ‘occur within or outside the corridor are taken into account in the geohazard identification criteria where appropriate [As a means to inventory potential geohazards, there are ten genetal categories of geohazards associated with fone or more of the challenging geographic environments considered in this paper. There are 40 geohazard identified under these ten categories that serve asthe bass for the initial geohazard screening assessment (Table 1), Some ofthese _geohazard can be further subdivided on the basis of longitudinal versus cross slope (e-g., NEB 2006). Table 1 also provides a silized checklist to identity possible options for mitigating the identified geohazards (i.e, specialized analysis, field investigation, design mitigation, monitoring and maintenance). These options will vary from project to projest depending on a number of factors including cost, availability and schedule related to each mitigation option. Some geohazards (e.2. steep unstable slopes, karst features, and massive ice) may be best mitigated by avoidance through route refinements within a specified corridor where feasible For each geohazard, a standard template is completed to capture key information required to identify the _gcohazard and estimate the relative susceptibility of terain along the pipeline route to the geohazard, Once completed for each geohazard, the suite of templates is maintained throughout the project life to ensure consistent characterization of geohazards, and is updated as new information becomes available to refine the geohazard assessment (i, replacing conservative assumptions with route data). The information captured by the geokazard si Geohazard Name ~ from geahazard inventory Process Description - process/event associated with geohszard Process Rate -rate at which geohazard develops Potential Effeets- effects on pipe and on other pipeline elements “Triggering Mechs -geohazard ‘Controlling Parameters — primary and secondary attributes associated with geohazard occurrence Contributing Factors - additional atributes that may influence the geohazard Relation to Other Geohazards - possible linkages to other geohazarls Constant mary template is as follows: ms ~ mechanisms that may initiate che prima al constraints on the influence ofthe geohszard Identification Criteria ~all specie criteria for identifying the geohazard Ranking Criteria ~ specific criteria for ranking the geohazard and estimating index values (© Initiation index - specify threshold for initiation (© Frequency index - specify rationale for recurrence frequency (© Rate index - specify rationale for expected rate of development ofthe geohazand © Vulnerability index - specify rationale for vulnerability of spectic pipeline elements Mitigation” Monitoring Options ~ options to reduce suscepuibility and effects on index values Linkage to Field Investigation - identity information required to improve identification or ranking Data Sources ~ GIS data sources required Query —GIS query of data sources Specific Output - identify specific features and data layers to show on maps and as 3D images General Comments - pertinent comments on refinements to template or other information 3. Geohazard Assessment Approaches ‘The spectrum of risk assessment approaches includes qualitative, semi-quantitative, quantitative and probabilistic with blurred boundaries between these methodologies. To large measure, how the failure frequency inputs fare established categorizes the approach. As an example, in the typically important geotechnical consideration of slopes, several approaches for calculating slope feilure frequencies have been reported in general geotechnical literature (Fell 2005 and Picareli 2005). These approaches include: 1. Historie data within a well defined study arca such a geomorphological provinee. 2. Empirical methods based on correlations with slope instability rankings 3. Expert judgment hased on historical data and geomorphological evidence or within the framework of logic rmovdels such as fault tree methods 4. Relationships to wiggering events such as rainfall (volume and intensity) and earthquakes.Rio Pipeline Conference & Exposition 2007 Table 1. Inventory of potential geohazards and related phenomena and effects ‘cia iaon i [Sen Oger 4) conan Description of Phenomenon and Potential Effects 7 Ari 8 s|8)6| 2/8 a|8\8 Tey 7 as — ae Ra eC Ghaataaens [sired Soph raw sowed sqaure ny Tommyomramurmar teeta f fof commer soa o aus sana: | z ae [ssiesryasesres sy engi a 7 haa Spool lute il 7 [estar ines) eee = ox “Pe a aeee [eons rsopsuteran tao nap gorse or rd ata AEE AT OSTA el [Ses eesti aches Se ta eben TEE z zz Fis Ta aR emer tet} fot} fotr fosstae sonic ousyanojaestean beard saranesaniecnow EoD ae aly amet is puneesd nine nen ansaasra ate x ale [rotaieansaany fees enrnaemae areutamarstars cca eemtarm Umma [To] ]o [7] [a aa fee pemmeernydcnmpe tampa trwnttnetemersocmetaneoms || | [7 a TE a a elaine CW Ea I fondant ope espeen rvmmrveadweemaciererem To] | ae aman Reeder aren ogee renner open tra] loL | 7] 7]7]e 7 eater a RS CATS TE EaEaEAEa eaetoe [sendwectainiay So Rararaa soe remem Tass] sop | To aca a a =m | [|e acai T = r =< a ny a vmramnomermm ate ral |o[el|e ET Re TT eet Prone ae a as arRio Pipeline Conference & Exposition 2007, 5. Application of probabilistic methods modeling the uncertainties of key slope stability governing parameters for individual slopes. Infact this isa well advanced arena with an extensive body of published references (Nadim and Lacasse 2008, Nadim 2008) ‘A methodology combining the fourth and fifth of the above approaches was applied as part oF a quantitative risk assessment of slope instability hazards inthe pipeline integrity management context for an operating company (Zhou 2000a). 6 quantitative methodology was also applied for the pipeline integrity hazards due to hydrodynamic loadings at pipeline water erossings by the same operating company (Zhou 2000) (Quantitative and probabilistic risk assessment approaches, where they may be effectively deployed, can present several potential advantages. These advantages include (Fell 2005) [Imposing a rational and systematic approach to assessing safety and prioritizing integrity management activities 2. Allowing comparison ofrsks across an owner's portlio of hazard, such as geohazards versus metal loss processes However, the selection by an operator ofa particular geohazard assessment approach is linked 10 practieal business context sues that impact the operator's ability to gather site specific and distributed route data, Figure | presents a simplified summary ofthe relationship over the lifecycle ofa pipeline between business context, aveumulation of route data and the general practicality of implementing geohazard assessment approaches. Clearly, ‘quantitative or probabilistic geokazard assessment approaches that require a large amount of site-specific and general route data are beter suited for operational stages following construction once as-built characterization and a sufficient base of operational data are available, There are cautions in trying to implementa quantitative or probabilistic risk assessment of geohazards where insufficient data are available as input, As stated by Lee and Charman (2008), “The quality ofa risk assessment is related (0 the extent to which the hazards are recognised, understood and explained ~ this is not necessarily related to the extent to which they are quantified. The temptation for increasing precision in the risk assessment process needs ro be tempered by a degree of pragmatism that reflects the reality of the simation and the limitations of available information, Numbers expressed to many decimal places can provide a false Impression of detailed consideration, accuracy and precision There remains a general lack of acceptance of quantitative and probabilistic risk assessment approaches within the geotechnical community. As recognition of this slate of practice, certain advanced pipeline design and risk management codes, such as those in Canada, acknowledge the practical challenges and limitations of applying these methods in practice. The Canadian code allows for a range of assessment options including qualitative, semi- quantitative and quantitative Figure 1. Geohazard mangement in the pipeline life eycle 3.2, Semi-Quantitative Methods In eatly project stages, the level of available information is generally considerably less than in later project stages where investigations have been undertaken to collect site-specific data, and as-built information is available, to 4Rio Pipeline Conference & Exposition 2007 supplement existing databases. Consequently, early project stages are better suited 10 qualitative or semi-quanitaive anproaches to geohazard assessment that can utilize available regional data in conjunction with conservative assumptions about unknown conditions. An example of a semi-quanttative assessment approach is provided by American Lifelines Alliance (Eguchi etal. 2008). An evolutionary approach to geohazard assessment is considered necessary to address the challenges of green: field pipeline projects. By transitioning systematically from qualitative to semi-quantitative to quantitative assessment of geohazards over the project life-cycle, allocation of resources and expenditures between design, construction and ‘operations can be balanced in relation to available route information. Early sereening phases of the approach permit ‘demification of areas requiring further investigation and possibly special site specific designs. Data collected in early stages of development are valuable inputs in planning field activities including locations and scope of field investigations. Early output from the geohazard assessment process also allows advance planning of possible monitoringimaintenance activities and fiequencies during pipeline operations, The general geohazard assessment approach proposed for early stages of development involves the following tasks: 1. Framework development - develop an assessment framework including @ list of credible probable ‘geohazards, a susceptibility ranking methodology, and geohazard summary sheets describing the characteristics and identification ranking criteria for exch geohazard 2. Spatial analysis - perform spatial analysis of geohazards using GlS-hased queries for geohazard occurrence, assess susceptibility ranking of individual geokazards, and conduct dynamic segmentation of the route based on ranked geohazards 3. Susceptibility assessment (unmitigated) ~ produce a composite geobazard spatial distribution based on all credible probable geohazards, accounting for geohazard load combinations and trigger-event pairs (i.e, sgeohazards that reinforce one another to application of any mitigation option). 4, Mitigation strtezy ~ identity options for reducing the rank of problematic geohazards through analysis, ficld characterization, design mitigation, and/or monitoring/maintenance, and estimate expected effects of applying the strategy showing geohazard ranking for unmitigated conditions (i.e, prior 3.2.1, Ranking Methodology The general application of the geohazard assessment approach includes evaluating a number of semi- {quantitative indices for each geohazard on an occurrence-by-occurrence besis along the pipeline route. The indices are caleulated intially assuming an unmitigated pipeline design to determine where and what type of mitigation may be required. The expected effeet of mitigation is then considered to determine a post-mitigation index value. This process links mitigation options (i.e, the toolbox) to in situ conditions and pipeline design, thereby illustrating the basis for seleeting specific mitigation options (i. the decision tree). A flowchart illustrating the assessment process is shown in Figure 2 ‘The four indices that constitute the basis for determining susceptibility ofthe pipeline to different geohazards are evaluated using expert judgment, and are described as follows ‘© Iitiation Index (i) ~this index ranges from 010 1. It characterizes the potential forthe geohazard to initiate at 1 specific location along the route by comparing route conditions to a defined initiation threshold for tha particular geohazard. A one-dimensional geohazard-specific occurrence map for each possible geohazand along the route is developed on the basis ofthis index ‘+ Frequency Index (F))~ this index ranges from 0,001 to 1. It characterizes the potential numberof occurrences (of a particular geohazard at a specific location in relation tothe life ofthe project. Observations of potential contributing factors are taken into aecount in determining an appropriate frequency index value fora particular eohazard + Rate Index (R.) ~ this index ranges from 0.1 to 1. It characterizes the rate at which a particular geohazard and associated effects may oceur, differentiating between rapid and gradual events/processes that may affect the pipe, ditch andior right-of-way. Vulnerability Index (V,) ~ this index ranges from 0.001 to 1. It characterizes the potential effects of particular geohazard on the three main pipeline elements (ic. pipe, ditch and rightof-way), differentiating between those geohazards that may potentially affect pipe integrity and those that may require either routine or non-routine intervention. The vulnerability criteria account for the design strain eapacity and durability of the pipe, and will therefore vary for different pipeline designs. ‘The susceptibility rank (S) of the pipeline to an occurrence of a specific geohazard (Gj) at an interval along the route is ealeulated asthe product of these four indices, ie. Sa=UxFxRix Vy 0Rio Pipeline Conference & Exposition 2007 Figure 2: Flowchart for evaluating geohazard index values,Rio Pipeline Conference & Esposition 2007 The calculated susceptibility rank i a semi-quanttative measure of relative effets on the pipeline elements for given geohazard, It should be noted that susceptibility may be insignificant if initiation of the geohazard is not possible (e.g, slope instability on flat terrain), if the geohazard may occur only rarely at a given location (ic ‘occurrence requires a very low probability triggering event), or if the vulnerability of the pipe and other pipeline «elements is negligible (Le. a very robust pipeline design eapable of withstanding all but extreme geohazards) “The possible index values are intentionally set orders of magnitude apart to help differentiate severe threats possibly requiring special design mitigation (e.., slope stabilization measures) from those that can be addressed using practical pipeline construction practices (e.g. bedding and padding to eliminate possible indentation of the pipe by shallow bedrock). A susceptibility threshold of 0.001 is used for initial screening, although this value requires some validation for different pipeline projects to ensure it relates to a condition requiring intervention or mitigation of some sort, Susceptibility values above the threshold are considered in the design process for possible mitigation, 3.2.2, Susceptibility Mapping and the Design Process By systematically applying the susceptibility ranking methodology to the pipeline route for each credible probable geohazard, susceptibility maps and 1D takeoffs can be generated for individual geohazanis. The next step in the geohazard assessment process involves producing a composite susceptibility map and 1D takeoff of the pipeline route on the basis of the individual susceptibility takeoffs. This composite takeoff identifies intervals that ar either free of geohszards, contain a single geohazard, or contain multiple geohazards. This process of identifying intervals with ‘unique geohazard characteristics is called dynamic segmentation of the route. For those intervals containing multiple geohazards, further assessment is required to determine ifthe eo-spatial ‘geohazards represent load combinations (.e., combinations that represent a more severe load on the pipeline elements than any of the individual geohazards acting alone), trigger-event pairs (ic, combinations where one or more ‘geohazards serve as a trigger for another more damaging geohazard), or simply coincident geohazards (ie, eohazards that have unrelated effects on the pipeline elements). To conduct this assessment, a matrix of geohazard-pipeline imeractions (Figure 3) was developed to categorize each geohazard in terms of four main effets: ‘© Pipeline deformation Pipeline boundary stress change ‘+ Pipeline material/eperational degradation © Ditch and right-of-way effects 4 | Soe aH Gl haa elila ! He elala H z i plu i =. Se : : ee : wo : EE [Now-Pine Effects ROW eect Ixtx Tx ToTx x x x Tepe X= Diet TO ie TT Figure 3, Example geohazard-pipeline interaction matrix,Rio Pipeline Conference & Exposition 2007 Primary Geohazard Dake er Dye hea Secondary Geohazard Figure 4. Example geohseard wigger-event pair matrix ‘Comparison of pipeline effects for different geohazards was used as the basis for identifying possible load ‘combinations and trigger-event pairs versus coincident geohazards, Matrices of geohazard trigger-event pairs (as shown in Figure 4) and of geohazard combinations were developed and used to account for potentially higher susceptibility in intervals with multiple geohazards. The example matrices shown in Figures 3 and 4 cover a subset of the widely ‘encountered geohazards; other less common geohazards can be added as require. ‘Although multi-branch chain-of-event effects are possible in terms of triggering mechanisms, the likelihood of ‘geohazard occurrence diminishes with cach additional branch in the conditional probability tree. The philosophy adopted for this assessment was to consider only two-step chain-of-event situations, and account for other possible contributing factors in assigning index values. The methodology to account for triggers involves reiterating the assessment based on the knowledge that one or more triggers are present ata specific location, and adjusting the index values as appropriate to recalculate susceptibility. To account for geohazard combinations, the susceptibility rank of ‘combined geohazards in the interval is inereased by one category (i. a factor of 10). In both cases, the susceptibility rank assigned to the interval is the maximum adjusted rank of all geohazards present within the segment, ‘The goal of the geohazard assessment is not to supplant a rigorous mult-disciplinary design approach, but 10 provide additional insight into spatial distribution and estimated severity of geokazards along the route. The output from the gechazard assessment is used in conjunetion with other information as input tothe design process. Presented in Figure 5 is a stylized output of the assessment for several individual geohazards indicating a ranked distribution of their ccurrences along a pipeline route. Based on these individual data bands, a composite data ‘band may then be compiled by GIS queries integrating the total mul-hazard unmitigated susceptibility rankings istributed over the pipeline route. Subsequently, a second composite data band may be compiled reflecting the post- igation susceptibility rankings distributed over the pipeline route mom (SL EIT renteatane Figure 5. Stylized output from geohazard assessment of pipeline routeRio Pipeline Conference & Exposition 2007 4. Conclusions A large inventory of potential geohazards has been identified for consideration, some widely distributed and thers less common, ‘The need for systematic deseription of geohazards was noted ineluding the recognition of potential interplay between individual geohazards, With proper application, gechazard assessment is a valuable tool for identifying possible issues for further investigation, design mitigation or ongoing operational monitoring. A phased approach to geohazard assessment of _reen-field pipelines is considered the most appropriate means of adapting to the evolving state of knowledge as the Project unfolds. semi-quantiative index-based approach is considered fit for purpose at the early development stage of pipeline projects, particularly in remote areas where there is limited route data available. As the project matures, {quantitative assessments may be applied either on a site-specific hasis, where there isa significant body of reported ‘experience, of on a system-wide basi where some experience has been reported 5. References NEB Website, www.NER.ge-cx/Application for the Construction and Operation ofthe Mackenzie gas Project ~ GH. 2004/Applicants IORVALIORVL-145—Mackenzie Gas Project ~ Geohazard Assessment Workshop Materials, 2006. FELL, R. ET AL. A framework for landslide risk assessment and management, Proceedings of the International Conference on Landslide Risk Management, Vancouver, Canada, 31 May ~ 3 June 2005, edited by Hungr et al., 2008 PICARELLI, L ET AL, Hazard characterization and quantification, Proceedings of the International Conference on Landslide Risk Management, Vancouver, Canada, 31 May ~ 3 June 2005, edited by Hungr et al, 2005 NADIM, F., EINSTEIN, H. AND ROBERDS, W., Probabilistic stability analysis for individual slopes in soil and rock, Proceedings of the International Conference on Landslide Risk Management, Vancouver, Canada, 31 May ~ 3 June 2005, edited by Hungr eta, 2008. ZHOU, J. ET. AL., An emerging methodology of slope hazard assessment for natural gas pipelines, Proceedings of the ASME 2000 International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Canada. 20008. ZHOU, J. ET. AL,, A methodology to maintain pipeline integrity at water eros International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Canada, 20006, NADIM, F, AND LACASSE, S., Probabilistic methods for quantification and mapping of geohazards, Proceedings of the 3* Canadian Conference of Geotechnique and Natural Hazards”, Edmonton, Canada, 2003. SCHOLEY, G. K., Impact of eolian sand hazards on desert pipeline construction, Proceedings of the International Conference on Terrain and gechazard challenges facing onshore oil and gas pipelines, London UK, 2 ~ 4 June 2004, ‘adited by Sweeney, M., 2004. BRAYBROOKE, J. C., A case study: geohazards risk assessment for a proposed pipeline across diverse geological environments in Papua New Guinea, Proceedings of the Intemational Conference on Terrain and geohazard challenges facing onshore oil and gas pipelines, London UK, 2~4 June 2004, edited by Sweeney, M., 2004 FOOKES, P. G., In Salah gas project, Algeria m- Part 1: Terrain evaluation for desert pipeline routing, Proceedings of the International Conference on Terrain and geahazard challenges facing onshore oil and gas pipelines, London UK, 2-4 June 200, edited by Sweeney, M.,2004a, FOOKES, P. G., Aligning oil and gas pipelines through the Makarov Mountains, Sakhalin, Russia, Proceedings of the International Conference on Terrain and geohazard challenges facing onshore oil and gas pipelines, London UK, 4 June 2004, edited by Sweeney, M., 20046. LEE, E. M. AND CHARMAN, J. H., Geohazards and Risk Assessment for Pipeline Route Selection, Terrain and Geohazard Challenges Facing Onshore Oil and Gas Pipelines, Thomas Telford, London, 2008 EGUCHI, R. T. ET. AL., Guidelines for Assessing the Performance of Oil and Natural Gas Pipeline Systems in Natural Hazard and Human Threat Events report prepared for the American Lifeline Alliance (ALA), www Americanl ifelinesAlliance.org, 2005, igs. Proceedings of the ASME 2008