PAPER
Detecting and Correcting Pipeline Leaks
Before They Become a Big Problem
AUTHORS
Ron Cramer
Shell Global Solutions US, Inc.,
Houston, Texas
David Shaw
Technical Toolboxes Consulting,
LLC, Houston, Texas
Robert Tulalian
Shell Nigeria
Pabs Angelo
Shell Norway
Maarten van Stuijvenberg
IPCOS, Luiven, Belgium
Background
T here is a very large global up-
stream pipeline network for the trans-
portation of hydrocarbon fluids. These
include hydrocarbon liquids, gases,
and multiphase fluids. In the authors’
opinion, pipelines offer the safest and
most efficient means of transporting
liquids. It is estimated, for example,
that deaths due to accidents per
ton-mile of shipped petroleum are
87 times greater for trucks, 4 times
greater for ships, and 2.7 times greater
for rail than for pipelines (Furchtgott-
Roth, 2013a) The July 2013 Quebec
rail incident resulting in many fatali-
ties, significant property damage, and
business loss provides further corrobo-
ration of the relative safety of pipelines
(Furchtgott-Roth, 2013b).
Over the last 30 years, the annual
number of pipeline leaks has decreased
significantly. However, the potential for
leaks still presents a significant risk, and
since the Macondo incident, there is a
ABSTRACT
Timely pipeline leak detection is a significant business issue in view of a long his-
tory of catastrophic incidents and growing intolerance for such events. It is vital to flag
containment loss and location quickly, credibly, and reliably for all green or brown
field critical lines in order to shut down the line safely and isolate the leak. Pipelines
are designed to transport hydrocarbons safely; however, leaks have severe safety,
economic, environmental, and reputational effects. This paper will highlight robust,
reliable, and cost-effective methods, most of which leverage real-time instrumenta-
tion, telecommunications, SCADA, DCS, and associated online leak detection appli-
cations. The purpose of this paper will be to review the underlying leak detection
business issues, catalogue the functional challenges, and describe experiences
with available technologies. Internal and external techniques will be described, includ-
ing basic rate of change of flow and pressure, compensated mass balance, statistical,
real-time transient modeling, acoustic wave sensing, fiber optic cable (distributed
temperature, distributed acoustic sensing), and subsea hydrophones. The paper
will also describe related credibility, deployment, organizational, and maintenance
issues with an emphasis on upstream applications. The scope will include leak de-
tection for pipelines conveying various flowing fluids—gas, liquid, and multiphase
flow. Pipeline environments will include subsea and onshore. Advantages, disadvan-
tages, and experiences with these techniques will be described and analyzed.
Keywords: pipelines, leak, fiber, SCADA
very low public tolerance for hydro- ilarly, even very carefully operated and
carbon spills. Thus, even though intrumented pipeline systems are sub-
pipelines provide the safest means of ject to unexpected environmental haz-
hazardous fluid transport, they are ards. The July 2011 Exxon Pipeline
also subject to unexpected leaks, and rupture, due primarily to a “thousand-
the purpose of this paper is to review year flood,” fouled 70 miles of river-
means of quickly identifying and mit- bank along the scenic Yellowstone
igating the impact of such incidents. River in Montana, killing fish and
Leaks occur on pipelines even wildlife and prompting a massive,
when the most careful inspection and months-long cleanup (Brown, 2013).
maintenance is performed system- The underlying leak detection
atically, notably even on brand new (LD) business requirement is therefore
constructions. The first Keystone tar fast, reliable, and credible flagging of
sands pipeline, constructed less than a containment loss for pipelines trans-
year previously, sprang its 12th leak porting hazardous hydrocarbons in
on May 29th, 2011, spilling approxi- order to initiate response actions to
mately 2,100 gallons of raw tar sands minimize spill volume and to mitigate
crude oil in Kansas (Swift, 2011). Sim- HSSE consequences. Fast containment
January/February 2015 Volume 49 Number 1 31
loss detection is important to facilitate
rapid response and hence minimize
consequent hazard and damage before
it becomes a “big problem.” For ex-
ample, the July 2010 Kalamazoo spill
leaked 840,000 gallons of oil into
the river prior to remediation, even
though leak alarms were flagged
at the time of the incident, some 17 h
before (National Transportation Safety
Board, 2010).
Performance Requirements
The performance of leak detection
systems varies widely between tech-
nologies, pipelines, and operational
situations. Factors such as sensitivity,
accuracy, reliability, robustness, and
adaptability must be considered when
selecting a leak detection system. The
American Petroleum Institute (API)
has published detailed guidelines and
procedures specifying how performance
of pipeline leak detection system (LDS)
is measured (API 1149, 1993; API
1130, 2007). Important aspects of
these are as follows:
■ sensitivity (minimum detectable
leak size and corresponding re-
sponse time);
■ accuracy (estimation of the true
leak flow rate and the location of
the leak);
■ reliability (ability of a leak detec-
tion system to render accurate
decisions about the existence of a
leak on a pipeline during normal
operations);
■ robustness (ability of a leak detection
system to continue to function and
provide useful information under
changing pipeline conditions).
It is important to note that no
single technology or even implemen-
tation of a single technology will
provide a perfect combination of all
these performance metrics. For ex-
32 Marine Technology Society Journal
ample, API 1149 (1993), a highly
sensitive LDS, will also tend to pro-
duce more false alarms, reducing its
reliability. Similarly, a highly accurate
system will tend to work less well in
unexpected situations, reducing its
robustness. Some of the more impor-
tant identified factors that affect per-
formance include the following (API
1149, 1993):
■ multiphase flow (generally, LD on
single-phase, incompressible fluids
is more reliable);
■ instrumentation placement;
■ instrumentation quality and
accuracy;
■ transient operations (generally, LD
on steady-state systems is simpler
and more reliable).
The API also emphasizes that LDSs
are complete systems that include tech-
nology, processes for utilizing the tech-
nology, and people who use them.
Performance of the entire system is
therefore a combination of the perfor-
mance of each component.
Categories of Technologies
Internal or Computational Pipeline
Monitoring (CPM) LDS (API 1130,
2007) works by a combination of
monitoring pipeline variables that re-
fresh online hydraulic models and
hence are subject to process uncer-
tainties and the limitations of pipeline
instrumentation. These LDSs utilize
field SCADA or DCS sensor data to
monitor pipeline parameters including
pressure, temperature, density, and
flow rate and thus continuously infer
hydrocarbon release by computation.
The general characteristics of internal
LDS are summarized as follows:
■ fast detection of larger leaks (greater
than about 5% of total line flow);
■ inability to detect small (under 1%)
leaks;
■ pipeline instrumentation accuracy
limits the LD sensitivity (for sys-
tems that monitor pipeline flow
changes, sensor repeatability is
key);
■ limited ability to locate leaks
accurately;
■ limited ability to handle pipeline
transients due to start-up, shut-
down, valve closures, intermittent
flow, and slack line flow—these all
tend to cause false alarms and to
limit reliability;
■ uncertainty due to fluid compo-
sition and physical properties—
especially the case for multi-phase
fluids.
External LDS detect leaking fluid
outside the line using direct sensing
(Geiger, 2006 and 2012). These LDS
measure physical properties around
the pipelines using sensors on or adja-
cent to the pipeline; for example, hydro-
carbon sensors, acoustic sensors, and
fiber optic cable sensors. The general
characteristics of external LDS are
summarized as follows:
■ continuous ability to detect and lo-
cate small, chronic leaks accurately,
usually by leaking fluid diffusing to
the sensor;
■ require regular sensor maintenance,
repair, or replacement;
■ difficulty in quantifying size and
rate of small leaks;
■ limited area coverage (requires many
sensors to cover a large area).
Figure 1 shows the principal current
internal and external LD technologies
(Thodi et al., 2012).
Internal LD by Simultaneous
Pressure/Flow Monitoring
of Incompressible Fluids
When a pipeline containing in-
compressible flowing fluid at greater
FIGURE 1
Listing of current internal and external pipeline LD technologies.
than ambient pressure ruptures, the
pressure decreases. At the same time,
the fluid flow into the line increases
and the flow out of the line decreases
—as shown in Figure 2. This is a char-
acteristic signature of a major line leak.
Thus, if existing real-time pressure
FIGURE 2
Typical flow and pressure response to a pipeline leak.
and flow measurements are available,
then they can be used for LD purposes
(see Figure 2).
If the fluid can be assumed to be
incompressible and inviscid, Bernoulli’s
theorem applies, and the flow squared/
pressure ratio of a pipeline is constant
January/February 2015
under steady-state conditions for a
given length of pipeline. This is shown
in Figure 3.
Under leak conditions, the flow
squared/pressure ratio will change sig-
nificantly. The detection of a leak,
using the flow and pressure, is there-
fore performed by a rate of change
(ROC) computation at steady state.
A filtered or time-averaged value (rep-
resenting steady nonleak conditions)
and nonfiltered flow squared/pressure
value (representing actual operating
conditions) is compared to give a
change of value (COV) indicator.
The filtering provides a built-in per-
sistence that reduces unwanted false
alarms. The COV, when it exceeds a
certain threshold, indicates a poten-
tial leak.

2 
Q 2IN Q IN
COV ¼

ΔPIN ΔPIN
The SCADA (or DCS) system
frequently (e.g., every 30 s) samples
the pressure and flow measurements
and derives the COV. Any significant
change is flagged immediately as a
high-priority alarm at the central con-
trol room (CCR). The alarm threshold
settings are crucial (too tight), the sys-
tem generates numerous false alarms
(too wide), and the system may miss
leaks. To get the balance right, it is
recommended to build a pipeline
hydraulic model, simulate leak con-
ditions, and tune the alarm limits to
detect leak levels with negligible false
alarms. A simple traffic light display
can also be used to show the pipeline
alarm status (see Figure 4).
Advantages of this approach in-
clude the following:
■ simplicity—based on just two sen-
sor measurements and SCADA/
DCS, all of which may preexist, in
Volume 49 Number 1 33
FIGURE 3
Typical pipeline monitoring parameters.
which case the LDS can be installed
quickly and cost effectively;
■ fast indication of larger leaks;
■ relatively sustainable, due to use of
existing infrastructure that needs to
be maintained anyway;
■ instrumentation repeatability is
critical rather than accuracy;
■ relatively easy to apply to existing
brown fields pipelines—especially
if instrumentation and SCADA
are already in place;
■ reliability—low level of false alarms
if properly tuned.
Disadvantages of this approach
include the following:
■ LD sensitivity diminishes with dis-
tance from point of measurement;
FIGURE 4
Traffic light display showing overview LD alarm status.
34 Marine Technology Society Journal
■ will not identify leak location or
volume;
■ steady state only;
■ incompressible liquids only;
■ only a rough estimate of the true
leaks size;
■ not applicable to slack line flow;
■ will not detect small or pinhole
leaks.
Note that as this method works
only in steady state, it is necessary
to implement an automated means
of detecting transient operations and
suspending LD until steady state is
achieved. This is normally achieved
by tracking parameter rate of change.
This is by far the most common
means of pipeline LD due to wide
availability of the pressure and flow
measurements.
Internal LD Using
Flow Imbalance for
Incompressible Fluids
With Outlet Glow Derived
From Pressure Drop
The underlying principle here
is conservation of mass—material
flow leaving and entering the line is
balanced by line pack, unless a leak
occurs—which is also covered by
Geiger (2006).
In the upstream oil and gas busi-
ness, many lines transporting in-
compressible fluids have sensors
measuring flow and pressure upstream,
along with just a pressure measure-
ment downstream. A relationship can
be derived from historic sensor data
that facilitates estimation of the flow
out of the line during steady state
and transient conditions as illustrated
in Figure 5.
FIGURE 5
Real-time export pressure and flow measurements showing good fit to Bernoulli (dotted line) at
higher flows (steady state) and deviation from Bernoulli at lower flows due to transient operations.
LD is achieved by tracking the im-
balance between flow in as measured
and flow out as estimated from this
relationship, once again as a COV to
minimize false alarms,
b OUT Þ
QIN
Q
COV ¼ ðQIN
Q b OUT
where Q I N is the metered mea-
surement and where the Q b OUT ¼
f ðPIN
POUT Þ relationship is derived
from Figure 5.
Features of this approach are sim-
ilar to that of inlet flow and pressure
monitoring, except for an increase in
LD sensitivity due to the addition of
outlet flow estimation. Sensitivity can
further be increased in the (less com-
mon) upstream situations where flow
and pressure are measured at both
ends of the pipeline.
Once again, it is important to tune
the COV alarm limits so that LD is
most sensitive and the false alarm rate
is minimized. It is also important to
benchmark the system in terms of
LD sensitivity. Tuning and bench-
marking can be achieved by using a
commercially available transient phys-
ical model to simulate the dynamics of
the pipeline system.
Advantages of this approach in-
clude the following:
■ Simplicity—based on simple sensor
measurements and SCADA/DCS,
all of which may preexist, in which
case the LDS can be installed quickly
and cost-effectively;
■ fast indication of larger leaks;
■ relatively sustainable, due to use of
existing infrastructure that needs
to be maintained anyway;
■ relatively easy to apply to existing
brown field pipelines—especially
if instrumentation and SCADA are
already in place;
■ Reliability—low level of false alarms
if properly tuned.
Disadvantages of this approach
include the following:
■ will not identify leak location or
volume;
■ steady state only;
■ incompressible liquids only;
January/February 2015
■ only a rough estimate of the true
leak size;
■ not applicable to slack line flow;
■ will not detect small, pinhole leaks.
Internal LD by Mass
Imbalance for Subsea Well
Multiphase Fluids Using
Virtual Flow Metering
(VFM) or Multiphase
Flow Meters (MFM)
The prevailing subsea multiphase
well flowline LD standard is the pres-
sure safety low (PSL) system. On a
major line rupture, PSL is designed
to render the network safe auto-
matically by tripping the system on
low pressure. This section describes
how PSL sensitivity can be improved
by combining with a real-time LDS
based upon flow imbalance. First, we
need to consider how to continuously
estimate (or measure) the subsea,
multiphase flows (MF).
Virtual flow metering (VFM) is a
flow calculation based on pressure
drop and temperature. Pressure and
temperature transmitters at the well-
head and within the well bore and
tree are used for these calculations.
Multiphase flow meters (MFM) are
more sophisticated instruments in-
stalled at the wellhead or in the choke
module of the tree. Most MFMs are
capable of deriving flow rates for gas,
water, and hydrocarbons separately.
Traditionally, it has proved dif-
ficult to reliably measure subsea
well flow rates. However, MFMs are
being installed on newer subsea facility
well flowlines ( Jackson et al., 2012),
primarily for allocation purposes
but with the potential to be used for
leak detection. Where MFMs are un-
available, VFM can be used to derive
transient and steady-state flow rates
Volume 49 Number 1 35
at subsea wells. VFMs for subsea wells are becoming progressively more common ■ All wells are closed-in → suspend
(Poulisse et al., 2006), and as MFMs continue to be relatively rare, VFM is con- leak detection.
sidered in this paper although the same LD principles apply for MFM. ■ Wells are producing and total
A typical subsea production system is sketched in Figure 6. virtual flow is stable, i.e., the
LD is achieved by tracking the imbalance between inlet flow estimated by variance of the flow is below a
VFM and flow out as measured after fluid separation at the receiving production certain threshold → perform leak
facility. Required real-time data include the following: detection.
■ pressure (P) measurements on wells and MF riser inlet to surface production ■ One or more wells are ramped
facility; down/up (if changes in valves are
■ estimated flow of each well using real-time well pressure measurements available) or closed-in (using the
(by VFM); VFM closed-in detection based on
■ the total virtual flow for each surface production system is the sum of the virtual configured criteria, e.g. flow rate
flows of all wells producing to that facility; below a threshold) → suspend
■ valve status measurements at the wells and platforms (if available); leak detection until wells are
■ flow measurements of separated liquid and vapour flows as measured at surface closed-in or in steady production
 gas 
production facility Q oil
TOTAL and Q TOTAL . and total virtual flow is stable).
With N wells producing to a production facility, the total virtual flow is com- Again it is important to tune COV
puted as follows: alarm thresholds to maximize sensi-
b oil ¼ ∑N b oil
q noil ¼ fnoil ðPn Þ
Total estimated liquid flow: Q n¼1 q n , where b tivity while minimizing false alarms
b gas ¼ ∑N b gas
q ngas ¼ fngas ðPn Þ
Total estimated gas flow: Q n¼1 q n , where b and to benchmark the system in
Flow imbalance for multiphase flow is again performed using COV: terms of LD sensitivity by hydraulic
modeling.
The physical/hydraulic model is
b oil
COVoil ¼ ðQ oil b oιl oιl
TOTAL
QTOTAL Þ
Q TOTAL
QTOTAL configured for the target upstream
b gas
Q gas Þ
Q
COVgas ¼ ðQ b gas
Q gas asset, inclusive of pump curves, piping
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
configuration and profile, valves, mani-
folds and fittings, etc. The model is
Leak detection for multiphase flow can be performed only during steady state. then used offline to simulate leak tran-
Therefore, transient states should be distinguished from steady states automat- sient conditions, with leaks as “pseudo
ically. For example: valves” at given positions in the lines
as shown in Figure 6. The model out-
put is time series pressure profiles that
FIGURE 6 are input to the LDS as a real-time data
stream to help tune threshold LD sen-
Typical subsea production system showing data acquisition for real-time VFM estimation and LD, sitivities and alarm settings.
as well as simulated leak locations at various positions to benchmark and calibrate LD alarm limits.
Some general features of this
approach include the following:
■ fast indication of large leaks;

■ relatively easy to apply to existing

brown fields pipelines, especially if

well flowline VFM is already in
place;
■ will not identify leak location or

volume—steady state only.

Note that multiphase flow mea-
surement can substitute for VFM
in above LD calculation if a reliable
MFM signal is available.

36 Marine Technology Society Journal

 Advantages of this approach in-
clude the following:
■ simplicity—based on simple sensor
measurements, virtual flow estima-
tion, and SCADA/DCS, all of
which may preexist, in which case
the LDS can be installed quickly
and cost-effectively;
■ fast indication of larger leaks;
■ relatively sustainable, due to use of
existing infrastructure that needs to
be maintained anyway;
■ relatively easy to apply to existing
brown fields pipelines—especially
if instrumentation and SCADA
are already in place;
■ reliability—low level of false alarms
if properly tuned.
Disadvantages of this approach
include the following:
■ will not identify leak location or
volume;
■ steady state only;
■ incompressible liquids only;
■ only a rough estimate of the true
leak size;
■ not applicable to slack line flow;
■ will not detect small, pinhole
leaks.
Internal LD by Statistical
Analysis of Measured Flow
Imbalance and a Long Dry
Gas Pipeline Example
This technology detects leaks by
performing a statistical analysis of
real-time pipeline line pack derived
from flow imbalance calculations
using the flow and pressure measure-
ments along the pipeline.
Given an imbalance R(t), the statis-
tical approach asks the question: Is the
imbalance at this time t likely to be on
average of the old value μ or has it in-
creased to μ + Δμ? This is a statistical
hypothesis question and is approached
using the sequential probability ratio
test (SPRT).
Some general features of this ap-
proach are as follows:
■ improves LD sensitivity over and
above basic pressure/flow or im-
balance techniques;
■ requires setup and expertise, but no
modeling;
■ not directly applicable to leak lo-
cation or volume.
Further detail of this methodology
is provided by Zhang (1998).
This LD methodology is widely ap-
plied to pipelines that are equipped
with the required pipeline pressure,
flow-in, and flow-out measurements.
An extreme case of application of this
LD technique is a 500 km, 24-inch di-
ameter dry gas export pipeline shown
in Figure 7 and described below.
The LDS acquires flow and pres-
sure data from the SCADA system
every 5 s. After automatic data cleans-
ing and filtering, it applies the sequen-
tial probability ratio test (SPRT) to the
FIGURE 7
Statistical flow imbalance LDS as applied to a long dry gas export pipeline.
January/February 2015
corrected flow difference (including
line pack) to calculate a leak probabil-
ity. To minimize false alarms, pattern
recognition techniques are used to
identify changes in the relationship
between the pressure and flow when
a leak occurs.
The system was tested using a sim-
ulation of the LDS that generates time
series pipeline data before, during, and
after a simulated leak. The inlet and
outlet flows, pressures, and tempera-
tures logged from the site were im-
ported into the model as time profiles
and then assigned as constraints.
Model configuration data included
pipeline elevation profile, ambient
temperature profile, gas composition,
pipe diameters and heat transfer coeffi-
cients. An example extract of the corre-
lation between the simulator and the
actual site data is shown in Figure 8.
The LD simulator was validated
by comparing results against a stan-
dard pipeline hydraulic modeling tool
(SHM) for a simulated full bore
Volume 49 Number 1 37
FIGURE 8
The LD simulation validated by comparing the predicted time series data with actual logged data
for the 502-km gas export pipeline.
rupture. An example extract (Figure 9)
shows that both models produce similar
results for the flow rate, with an ex-
tremely high initial leak rate followed
by a rapid decay that becomes much
steadier after 1 h.
A number of rupture conditions
were then simulated to determine the
LDS response time as shown in Table 1.
The LDS gave consistent results
across all the test cases including the
cases using site data. The LDS demon-
strated that the minimum detection
size was a 0.5-inch hole—0.25 inch
was not detected; therefore, the actual
FIGURE 9
Dynamic response to rupture from LD simulation and hydraulic simulation validation indicating
good fit.
38 Marine Technology Society Journal
minimum detection size is likely
within that range.
Advantages of this approach in-
clude the following:
■ based on simple sensor mea-
surements and SCADA/DCS, all
of which may preexist, in which
case the LDS can be installed
quickly;
■ fast indication of larger- and
medium-sized leaks;
■ relatively easy to apply to existing
brown field pipelines—especially
if instrumentation and SCADA
are already in place;
■ some leak detection capability dur-
ing pipeline transients;
■ reliability—low level of false alarms
if properly tuned.
Disadvantages of this approach in-
clude the following:
■ requires accurate in and out flow
and pressure measurement to effec-
tively estimate line pack;
■ some extra cost associated with
license fees and need for ongoing
vendor support;
■ statistical algorithms need to be
tuned and sustained;
■ usually requires a dedicated leak
detection server;
■ only a rough estimate of the true
leaks size;
■ not applicable to slack line flow;
■ will not detect small, pinhole
leaks.
Internal LD Case Study—
North Sea Deep Water
and Long Subsea Wet
Gas Flow Pipeline
North Sea gas field production is
achieved by subsea (1,100 m deep)
wells, commingling into two 110-km,
30-inch production pipelines trans-
porting the multiphase gas condensate
to large slug catchers at the onshore pro-
cessing plant as shown in Figure 10.
Since the flowing fluid is domi-
nated by gas and gas flow measure-
ment subsea is very accurate, only the
gas rate is used in the flow imbalance
calculation. In the event of a leak in
the pipeline, the gas will escape to the
sea and the onshore gas rate will fall.
There is a regulatory requirement
(DNV-RP-F302, 2010) for leak detec-
tion and location for both the mono-
ethylene glycol (MEG) distribution
lines and the multiphase pipeline.
Consequently an LDS has been installed
TABLE 1
Simulated LD results for line ruptures of different sizes at different locations.

Case 6 Case 1 Site Data June Data

Detection Detection Detection Detection
Leak Time Location Time Location Time Location Time Location
1″ KP276 4h 268.6 km 3 h 46 m 266 km 3 h 38 386 km 4 h 2m 302 km
1″ KP470 1 h 56 m 335.9 km 1 h 53m 335 km 2 h 11 m 497 km 2h3m 367 km
1″ Riser 2 h 19 m 0 km 3h7m 0 km 2h3m 0 km 1 h 34 m 0–200 km
4″ KP276 35 m 394.3 km 29 m 19 s 476 km 36 m 39 s 492–368 km 44 m 444–334 km
4″ KP470 7 m 19 s 504 km 6 m 59 s 504 km 7 m 19 s 504 km 8 m 40 s 504 km
4″ Riser 2 m 39 s 0 km 2 m 59 s 0 km 2 m 39 s 0 km 2 m 40 s 0 km
FB KP276 22 m 19 s 504 km 20 m 59 s 504 km 21 m 19 s 504 km 20 m 40 s 482–353 km
FB KP470 2 m 59 s 504 km 2 m 59 s 504 km 2 m 39 s 504 km 3m 504 km
FB Riser 2 m 39 s 0 km 2 m 39 s 0 km 4 m 39 s 0 km 4 m 40 s 0 km
.5″ KP276 19 h 40 m 243 km 21 h 19 m 243.1 km 18 h 16 m 0–403 km 7 h 26 m 229 km
.5″ KP470 14 h 21 m 260 km 11 h 55 m 285.5 km 16 h 15 m 316 km 6 h 53 m 230 km
.5″ Riser 16 h 7 m 169 km 28 h 45 m 224.7 km 18 38 m 0–504 km 7h7m 280 km

that in the event of a leak generates
CCR alarms showing leak rate, leak
percentage and location, plotted on
a pipeline profile and map. The leak
FIGURE 10
LDS for the production system (production pipelines and infield flowlines) from wellhead wet gas
flow meters to the onshore export gas metering station.
detection system is based on compar-
ison of measurements and calculated
values. Leak detection for the produc-
tion system (production pipelines and
infield flowlines) starts at the wellhead
wet gas flow meters and ends at the
onshore export gas metering station.
Flow rate and pressure measurements
are compared to calculated values
from the leak detection system. The
deviations between measured and cal-
culated values are detected and used
to identify and report the leak rate
and location.
In order to reduce number of false
alarms, the discrepancies from the
mass balance estimator are analyzed
over three different time spans, and
the average over each time span is con-
tinually calculated. Each average from
the three different time spans is com-
pared against three different leak alarm
thresholds. The shortest time span has
a high leak rate threshold to be able to
detect large leaks in a short time; the
longest time span has a low leak rate
threshold to be able to detect small
leaks after a longer time. If the leak de-
tection has been disabled or turned off,
the filters will clear the stored values

January/February 2015 Volume 49 Number 1 39

and will not start to store measured data
until LD is re-enabled and turned on.
Additionally, the LDS is based on a
normal line configuration both subsea
and onshore. In the event of an alter-
ation in the normal line-up, the LDS
will turn off some of the functionality
or will delay the report of an alarm. An
running in real time. Pipeline pressure
and flow profiles are calculated based
on line inlet and outlet measurements.
The actual, measured, and calculated
profiles are compared, and if there is
a discrepancy, the location and size
of the leak are computed. The model
can be tuned to distinguish between
■ leak detection during periods of
pipeline transient operation.
Disadvantages of this approach in-
clude the following:
■ expensive, complex—numerous
instruments, extensive controller
training, and system maintenance;
■ simulated transients can be dif-

alteration of the line-up could be caused
by an equipment maintenance plan.
An offline simulation exercise was
used to benchmark wet gas flowline
LDS capabilities as shown in Table 2.
An offline simulation exercise was
used to benchmark the MEG pipeline
LDS capabilities as shown in Table 3.
instrument errors, normal transients,
and leaks. Commercially available
RTTM packages can simulate pipeline
flow conditions using advanced fluid
mechanics, hydraulic modeling, con-
servation of momentum calculations,
conservation of energy calculations,
and numerous flow equations.
ficult to verify, e.g., water cut
changes, GOR changes during
well start-up as these values are not
measured—consequently, there
may be tuning difficulties and it
may be hard to sustain the model
over time;
■ difficult to keep the model well

Further detail of this application
is given by Lunde et al. (2009) and
Angelo et al. (2013).
Internal LD Using
Real-Time Transient
Modeling (RTTM)
RTTM consists of a complete de-
tailed transient and steady-state physical/
hydraulic model of the pipeline system
Advantages of this approach in-
clude the following:
■ increased LD sensitivity—models
dynamic fluid characteristics (flow,
pressure, temperature), inclusive of
pipeline length, diameter, thickness,
as well as product characteristics
(density, viscosity, etc.);
■ model can be tuned to distinguish
between instrument errors, normal
transient, and leaks;
enough tuned to eliminate false
alarms;
■ rarely applicable for multi-
phase flow—real-time model-
ing of multiphase flow is very
complex;
■ extra expense associated with
software license fees, complex
model maintenance, dedicated IT
servers, and accurate in and out
flow and pressure measurement;

TABLE 2
LDS benchmark for 30″ 110 km wet gas flowline.

Leak Size (Shell DEP) Flow, MSm3/d Detection Time, s LDS Gas, vol% Company Specification Gas, vol%
Small leak Not applicable 1–5
Medium leak 5.25 14,400 13 5–25
Large leak 10.5 7,200 26 25–50
Major leak 17.5 3,600 44 50–100

TABLE 3
LDS benchmark for MEG lines.

Leak Size Flow, kg/h Detection Time, s LDS Flow, Mass % Company Specification, Mass %
Small leak 1,667 7,200 5 1–5
Medium leak 3,355 1,800 10 5–25
Large leak 6,711 600 20 25–50
Major leak 50–100

40 Marine Technology Society Journal

■ will not detect small, pinhole
leaks.
Further detail regarding this ap-
proach to leak detection can be found
in API 1130 (2007).
External LD Using
Acoustic Pressure Wave
(Also Known as Negative
Pressure Wave)
This LD technology is designed to
detect the (acoustic) pressure wave
(PW) that is generated at the onset of
a leak. The wave travels in all directions
from the point of the leak at the speed
of sound in the particular fluid. Pres-
sure sensors installed on the pipeline
detect/report the acoustic wave as it
travels past the point of measurement.
Each sensor utilizes GPS technology
to accurately time-stamp the sensor
response. By comparing wave arrival
times at a sensor upstream of a leak
and downstream of the leak, the speed
of sound in the pipeline medium
can be used to automatically compute
the location of the leak between the
sensors. A typical PW installation is
shown in Figure 11.
Advantages of this approach in-
clude the following:
■ fast leak detection (speed of sound
in the medium);
■ fairly precise indication of leak
location.
Disadvantages of this approach in-
clude the following:
■ sensitive only to the singular sound
wave produced by the breach—
if sensor resolution and telemetry
speed is not fast enough, the “one-
shot” signal could be missed;
■ needs accurate speed of sound
m ea s ur e m e n t i n th e fl o w i n g
medium—this could be a problem
for multiphase flow;
■ no indication of leak volume;
FIGURE 11
Typical acoustic wave installation showing pipeline pressure gauges and high-speed telemetry to
transmit signals back to host server.
■ may be prone to false alarms due to
spurious sound effects like mech-
anical noise, ocean currents; also,
small variations in pressure can
lead to false alarms;
■ inappropriate for facilities that
interfere with sound transfer, like
complex pipeline networks, pigging
operations;
■ it is only able to detect leaks
reliably in relatively steady state
conditions;
■ mainly for liquid pipelines, as pres-
sure waves are quickly attenuated
in gas pipelines;
■ relatively little evidence of success-
ful, sustained field operation;
■ will not detect small, pinhole
leaks.
The main concerns with this
methodology are its relative imma-
turity, tendency to false alarms and
problems anticipated with tuning/
sustaining in a pipeline environment
that is subject to changing fluid com-
positions, pigging, and transients.
May be more appropriate for green
fields operations as pressure measure-
ment and high speed telemetry may
January/February 2015
be more difficult to cost-justify for
brown fields operations.
Further detail regarding this ap-
proach to leak detection can be found
in Scott and Barrufet (2003).
External LD Using
Fiber Optic Cable (FOC)
Distributed Sensing Systems
Fiber-optic leak detection systems
utilize “standard,” communications
grade, fiber-optic cables installed
along the outside of the pipeline. The
systems operate based on the principle
that light transmission through the
fiber-optic cable will be altered by the
presence of leaked product absorbed
into the cable coating. The coatings
on the fiber-optic cable react with
leaked hydrocarbons to change the
refractive properties of a segment of
the cable. High-frequency pulsed
laser is used to locate the position of
this change in refractive index and
has potential to detect small leaks (see
Figure 12). FOS can be used effectively
on liquids, multiphase fluids, and nat-
ural gas systems.
Volume 49 Number 1 41
FIGURE 12
Typical FOS installation.
Anomalies along the fiber are de-
tected by the changes in the properties
of scattered light backscattered to the
source. Different light scattering pro-
cesses respond to different physical
property changes at differing locations
down the fiber-run. Two of these are sig-
nificant for pipeline LD (see Figure 13).
FIGURE 13
FOC optical scattering patterns.
42 Marine Technology Society Journal
■ Rayleigh banding is sensitive to
the acoustic signature generated
by leaking fluid for distributed
acoustic sensing (DAS). It acts as
a pseudohydrophone without
the need to contact leaking fluids.
Advantages of this approach in-
clude the following:
■ potential for fast small leak detec-
tion and location estimation with
high sensitivity;
■ potential for continuous LD for
longer pipelines, e.g., Arctic,
subsea;
■ minimal external power require-
ments and immune to electro-
magnetic interference;
■ LD for all pipeline conditions
(start-up, shutdown, valve closure,
transients) and for all pipeline
■ Raman/Brillouin band scatter- fluids (single phase oil, gas, and
ing is used for distributed tem- multiphase);
■ complex electronics not exposed
perature sensing (DTS) to detect
leakage, which causes significant to operational environment—
temperature change, as in gas located in protected, air con-
pipelines where Joule-Thomson ditioned location at one end of
effects may result in significant the pipeline; intrinsically safe
cooling. installation;
Disadvantages of this approach in-
clude the following:
■ no indication of leak volume;
■ fiber installation is an issue—e.g.,
offshore may need to pass over lay
vessel rollers/trenching equipment,
onshore need to assess impact of
trench and soil conditions;
■ s u s t a i n a b i l i t y u n c l e a r — very
small operational installed pipe-
line LDSs, hence uncertain mini-
mum LD thresholds of detection
and false alarm issues, especially
subsea;
■ fiber not so good for complex pipe-
line networks.
Further detail regarding this ap-
proach to leak detection can be found
in Minto (2013), Lowell (2013), and
Dutoit (2013).
External Subsea LD for
Short Pipeline Lengths,
e.g., Manifolds, Well
Heads Using Passive
Acoustic “Hydrophone”
The principle of operation of
all these systems is that any leak
causes a sound that lies within a spe-
cific frequency range depending
on the leaking fluid. The sound in-
tensity of the leak is mostly depen-
dent on the pressure difference over
the leak orifice and the distance from
the leakage point to the acoustic sen-
sor. LD acoustic sensors incorporate
filtering to remove all sound that
does not fall within the frequency
range and filter out all random
(white) noise. The performance of
these systems depends critically upon
the signal processing algorithms that
reject extraneous noise, identify very
faint leak sounds, and locate the
leak. The ALD system contains three
hydrophones per detector, which gives
a possibility to detect the leakage point
by triangulation.
Acoustic systems can be used effec-
tively on both liquids and natural gas
systems.
Figures 14 and 15 illustrate subsea
sensor installations.
Advantages of this approach in-
clude the following:
■ rapid leak detection at leak source;
■ detects liquid and gas leaks;
■ potential for relatively large subsea
detection area (ca. 100 m).
Disadvantages of this approach in-
clude the following:
■ subsea applications only—usually
only in a given, higher risk area,
e.g., well head, manifold, riser;
■ unsuitable for long pipeline leak
detection;
■ inaccessible for routine mainte-
nance, hence needs to be highly ro-
FIGURE 14
Typical subsea manifold acoustic sensor LD installation.
bust and maintenance/calibration
free;
■ needs to be resistant to biofouling;
■ uncertain minimum LD thresh-
olds;
■ tends to be very expensive com-
pared to real-time computer-based
LDS;
■ false alarms can be an issue—one
operator experienced problems
FIGURE 15
Acoustic sensor LD subsea assembly.
January/February 2015
during an ROV inspection. The
thrusters in the ROV generated
noise and was interpreted by the
system as a leak.
Further detail regarding this ap-
proach to leak detection can be found
in Smith (2013).
Combined External
and Internal LDSs
For Greenfield assets, it is best to
include multiple independent means
of detecting leaks, including both in-
ternal and external LDS. This is both
an accepted engineering best practice
(Geiger, 2006, 2012; DNV-RP-
F302, 2010), and in some situations
it is part of the regulations (TRFL,
2003). This strategy can be very robust
in detecting small to big leaks, from
focused equipment to very long pipe-
lines. In the event of a leak, the com-
plete system would generate the same
alarm, which would mean that the
leak alarm is more accurate and reli-
able. For example, a medium leak in
a tree would be detected both by
acoustic leak detection and flow im-
balance LDS (Figure 16).
Volume 49 Number 1 43
FIGURE 16 Findings Synopsis
Multiple leak detection systems installed in a subsea asset. The following table attempts to
summarize the findings of this paper
and perhaps provide some indications
of LD system applicability with the
following cautions (Table 4):
■ LD systems rarely are “one size fits

all” and will vary with individual

pipeline circumstance.
■ LD systems considered are
all “continuous” and hence ap-
plicable to continuous pipeline
operations with a view to fast leak
detection.
■ The list of LD systems considered

is not comprehensive and tends

to reflect the author’s experiences
and opinions.

TABLE 4
Overall evaluation of leak detection systems considered.

Continuous Leak Detection Type

Pressure/ Flow Acoustic Passive
Evaluation Criteria Flow Imbalance VFM Statistical RTTM Wave Fiber Acoustic
Cost Low Low Low Med High Med High Very high
Maturity and Very high Very high Low High Low Very low Very low Very low
deployment
Rapid deployment Yes Yes Yes Some No No No No
capability
Sustainability High High High Med Low No data No data No data
Reliability (minimal High High No data Med Low Low No data Med
false alarms)
Leak size >10% >5% >15% <5% >1% No data >1% No data
Leak detection time Minutes Minutes Minutes Minutes Minutes Seconds Seconds Seconds
Leak location No No No Some Some Good Good No
Leak volume No No No Some Some No No No
Transient LD No No No Some Yes No data Yes No data
Incompressible Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fluid LD
Gas LD Some Some Some Yes Yes Some Yes Yes
Multiphase LD No No Yes No No No Yes Yes
Dedicated hardware No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
needed

44 Marine Technology Society Journal

Conclusions
There is a wide scope to apply inter-
nal LDS technology to older, brown
field subsea and surface pipelines,
which may be more prone to rupture.
In upstream operations, we have a
plethora of pipelines transporting multi-
phase fluids—precious few of these
lines have LDS mainly because there
is no flow measurement. However,
the increasing use of VFM for sur-
veillance and allocation purposes raises
the opportunity of extensions to LD.
If fast rupture detection is required,
simple ROC and/or mass balance may
suffice. In many cases, utilization of ex-
isting SCADA and flow pressure in-
strumentation lends itself to fast and
cost effective deployment. The tech-
nology is for the most part mature
and well proven. The objective of an
internal LDS is to spot larger leaks,
quickly—not for detecting small leaks.
External LDSs are generally more
appropriate to green field subsea and
surface pipelines, which ironically,
being “new,” are mostly less prone to
aging phenomena that can result in
leaks through, for example, corrosion.
The technology is for the most part less
mature and continually evolving, with
as yet fewer operational installations.
The promise of external systems is
that they are more suitable for multi-
phase flow LD and the detection of
smaller leaks.
A major key to the successful im-
plementation of internal and external
LDS is effective use and ongoing
system maintenance. For this, these
systems need to be part of the main-
stream operations—quite the anti-
thesis of the pipeline disappearing
overboard and becoming out of sight,
out of mind!
Every LD application is different—
one size does not fit all. There is a need
for total clarity on the underlying LD
business requirements, inclusive of LD
requirements for sensitivity, false
alarms, operator training, and a cost/
benefit analysis to ensure that user
and asset expectations are met and
managed effectively.
Setting and maintaining realistic
alarm limits—that maximize sensitiv-
ity, while minimizing false alarms—
is critical to the long-term value of an
LDS; not so wide that leaks are missed
and not so narrow such that the oper-
ator is plagued with false alarms. The
use of an offline hydraulic model to
simulate leak conditions and thus
tune workable alarm limits is recom-
mended. It is important to re-tune
alarm limits periodically to reflect
changing pipeline conditions such as
increasing water cut, GOR, etc. LDS
performance will be different for each
pipeline and, with most upstream ap-
plications, will change with time.
It is particularly advantageous to
have multiple independent and cor-
roborative leak detection systems, par-
ticularly for long subsea tiebacks, to
maximize the robustness and reliability
of any leak alarms.
Glossary
ALVD—Acoustic leak and vibration
detector
COV—Change of value (instanta-
neous difference between mean and
latest value)
CCR—Central control room
CPM—Computational pipeline
monitoring
DAS—Distributed acoustic sensing
DCS—Distributed control system
DP—Pressure drop
DTS—Distributed temperature
sensing
FOS—Fiber optic systems
January/February 2015
GOR—Gas-oil ratio
GUI—Graphical user interface
HSSE—Health, safety, security, and
environment
JT—Joule-Thompson
KPI—Key performance indicator
LD—Leak detection
LDS—Leak detection system
MF—Multiphase flow
MFM—Multiphase flow meter
P—Pressure
PW—Pressure wave
PMS—Pipeline management system
PSL—Pressure safety low
Q—Flow
RTTM—Real-time transient model
SC—Slug catcher
SCADA—Supervisory control and
data acquisition system
SHM—Standard hydraulic modeling
tool
SPRT—Sequential probability ratio
test
TCI—Technical custodian
THP—Well head tubing head
pressure
VFM—Virtual flow measurement
WAN—Wide area network
References
Angelo, P., Rudrum, G., Holmås, K., Gahr
Lunde, G., & Setyadi, G. 2013. Challenges of
Flow Assurance System in Ormen Lange.
Presentated at 16th International Conference
on Multiphase Production Technology,
Cannes, France, June 12.
API 1149. 1993. Pipeline Variable Uncer-
tainties and Their Effects on Leak Detectability.
www.utsi.com/uploads/kcfinder/files/Nagala_
Verret_2002.pdf
API 1130. 2007. Computational Pipeline
Monitoring for Liquid Pipelines. 2nd Edition
(November, 2002). American Petroleum
Institute.
Brown, M. 2013. Yellowstone River Oil
Spill: Delayed Response Made Matters
Volume 49 Number 1 45
Worse. Huffington Post, 1/2/13. Available
at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/
01/02/yellowstone-river-oil-spill-response_n_
2397209.html.
DNV-RP-F302. 2010. Selection and Use
of Subsea Leak Detection Systems. https://
exchange.dnv.com/publishing/codes/download.
asp?url.../rp-f302
Dutoit, D. 2013. Fiber Optic Monitoring of
Subsea Flow Lines. Presented at MTS Leak
Detection Symposium, Houston, TX, 11/19/13.
Furchtgott-Roth, D. 2013a. Pipelines Are
Safest For Transportation of Oil and Gas.
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Issue
Brief Number 23, http://www.manhattan-
institute.org/html/ib_23.htm
Furchtgott-Roth, D. 2013b. Quebec tragedy
reminds us pipelines are safest way to trans-
port oil. Toronto Globe and Mail, 7/10/13.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/
quebec-tragedy-shows-that-pipelines-are-safest-
way-to-transport-oil/article13054202/
Geiger, G. 2006. State-of-the-Art in Leak
Detection and Localization. Pipeline Simula-
tion Interest Group Paper 0301. University of
Applied Sciences, Gelsenkirchen, Germany,
http://www.pipeline-conference.com/sites/
default/files/papers/321%20Geiger.pdf
Geiger, G. 2012. Principles of Leak Detec-
tion. Westphalia Energy Institute Report.
http://krohne.com/fileadmin/files-2/PipePatrol/
KROHNE_Gerhard_Geiger_Principles_of_
Leak_Detection_2012.pdf
Jackson, M., Napalowski, R., Paris, N., &
Moksnes, P. 2012. Operational experience
with subsea multiphase flow meters. Presented
at Asia Oil and Gas Conference, Perth, Aus-
tralia, SPE 158518, 10/22/12.
Lunde, G., Vannes, K., McClimans, O.,
Burns, C., & Wittmeyer, K. 2009. Advanced
Flow Assurance System for the Ormen Lange
Subsea Gas Development. Presented at Off-
shore Technology Conference, Houston, May
2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.4043/20084-MS.
Lowell, M. 2013. Distributed Fiber Optic
Sensing and Monitoring in O&G. Presented
46 Marine Technology Society Journal
at MTS Leak Detection Symposium, Houston,
TX, 11/19/13.
Minto, C. 2013. Innovative DAS Based
Multimode Leak Detection System. Presented
at MTS Leak Detection Symposium, Houston,
TX, 11/19/13.
National Transportation Safety Board.
2010. Pipeline Accident Report. 7/25/10.
http://www.epa.gov/enbridgespill/ar/
enbridge-AR-0003.pdf
Poulisse, H., van Overschee, P., Briers, J., &
Goh, K.C. 2006. Continuous Well Pro-
duction Flow Monitoring and Surveillance.
Presented at Intelligent Energy Conference,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, April 2006.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/99963-MS.
Scott, S., & Barrufet, M. 2003. Worldwide
Assessment of Industry Leak Detection Ca-
pabilities for Single & Multiphase Pipelines.
2003 MMS Report, OTRC Library Number:
8/03A120.
Smith, S. 2013. Subsea Leak Detection. Pre-
sented at MTS Leak Detection Symposium,
Houston, TX, 11/19/13.
Swift, A. 2011. The first Keystone tar sands
pipeline spills again—Providing twelve reasons
not to fast-track the Keystone XL tar sands
pipeline. June 1 2011. Available at http://
switchboard.nrdc.org.
Thodi, P., Paulin, M., DeGeer, D., &
Lanan, G. 2012. Offshore Pipeline LD Tech-
nologies. Presented at SALDS Leak Detection
Conference, Houston, TX, November, 2012.
TRFL. 2003. Technische Regel für
Fernleitungen (Technical Rule for Pipelines).
Zhang, J. 1998. Implementing a Reliable
Leak Detection Systemon a Crude Oil
Pipeline. Presented at Advances in Pipeline
Technology Conference, Dubai, Advances
in Pipeline Technology Conference, Dubai.