مخاطرات فرسایش آبراهه‌ای بر روی خط لولۀ گاز نهم سراسری با استفاده از روش ANP-PRSM

نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد گروه جغرافیای طبیعی، دانشکدة جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران

2 دانشیار گروه جغرافیای طبیعی، دانشکدة جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران

3 دانشیار گروه جغرافیای طبیعی، دانشکدة جغرافیا، دانشیار، دانشگاه تهران

4 دانشگاه پلی‌تکنیک والنسیا، اسپانیا

5 دانشجوی دکتری گروه جغرافیای طبیعی، دانشکدة جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

فرسایش آبراهه‏ای و رودخانه‏ای همواره یکی از فاکتورهای اصلی مخاطرات خطوط انتقال انرژی و لوله‏های نفت و گاز است. در این مقاله با استفاده از ماتریکس ریسک خط لوله (PRSM) و مدل ANP به بررسی مخاطرات فرسایش آبراهه‏ای در خط لولة گاز نهم سراسری در محدودة استان خوزستان با طول 170 کیلومتر پرداخته شده است. برای این منظور با استفاده از مدل ANP چهار معیار اصلی شامل «وضعیت خطوط لوله نسبت به آبراهه‏ها»، «هیدروژئومورفولوژی»، «ژئومورفولوژی»، و «دیگر عوامل محیطی» بررسی شد. سپس، با استفاده از مدل PRSM و پرسش‌نامه به امتیازدهی معیارها و زیرمعیارها در نرم‌افزار Superdecision پرداخته شد و در آخر  نقشة کلاس‌بندی مخاطرات خط لوله و محور ریسک تهیه شد. نتایج نشان داد که معیار «وضعیت خط لوله نسبت به آبراهه‏ها و رودخانه‏ها» دارای بیشترین وضعیت ریسک و واکنش نسبت به مخاطرات خط لوله در میان چهار معیار بالاست. زیرمعیارهای مهم و دارای بیشترین وضعیت ریسک برای خط لولة گاز نهم شامل روش ساخت خط لوله، واحد کوهستان، و جابه‌جایی آبراهه‏ها و رودخانه‏ها و زمین‌شناسی است.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Erosion Stream hazards in Ninth Gas Pipeline (IGAT-9) by using of ANP-PRSM

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ebrahim Moghimi 1
  • M. Jafar Beglou 2
  • mehran maghsoudi 3
  • Nolberto Monier 4
  • Amir Ahmadi 5
1 University of Tehran, Faculty of Geography
2 University of Tehran, Faculty of Geography
3 University of Tehran, Faculty of Geography
5 university of tehran
چکیده [English]

Abstract
river erosion is always one of the main factors in the risk of energy transmission lines and oil and gas pipelines. In this paper, using the Pipeline Risk Screening Matrix (PRSM) and the ANP model, stream pipelines in the Iran gas trunk – line 9 (IGAT 9), in the province of Khuzestan with a length of 170 km were investigated. For this purpose, using the ANP model, four main categories of criteria were included: the criteria "pipeline situation to the streams", "Hydrogeomorphology", "geomorphology" and "other environmental factors", with 36 sub-criteria, then using the PRSM model and the questionnaire were sub-criteria scoring in the Super decision software, as well as a pipeline hazard risk classification map. The results showed that the "pipeline situation to the streams" criterion has the highest risk and response to pipeline hazards among the four criteria. The most important sub-criteria with the highest risk profile are construction method, mountain, drainage and geology. Risk map is also in the range of Shushtar and km 150+ to 170+ in east of Dezful. The 9th gas pipeline has the highest risk situation and increased stream and rivers response in mountain geomorphology unit.
Kay words: hazard, stream erosion, gas pipeline, pipeline risk screening matrix, Iran gas trunk line-9.
Introduction
In the world, most of the research work on the hazards of pipelines (oil and gas pipelines) is in the United States, Canada and Russia, respectively. also Western European countries, in particular the UK, have had research in this field. In Iran, pipeline failure or damage to the pipeline is eroded annually. For example, Rafsanjan-Naein-Esfahan oil pipeline (2013), Ray-Tabriz (2017), In Iran, there is no comprehensive study in which the geomorphological impact of the erosion damages to the pipelines unlike the long history (over 110 year records) of the oil and gas industry. In this paper, the purpose is to identify and assess of the risk stream response by using of pipeline risk screening axis relation to IGAT 9. In Iran, there is no comprehensive study in which the geomorphological impact of the erosion of the stream due to the damage caused to the pipelines by the history of more than 110 years of the oil and gas industry has not been addressed. The purpose of this paper is to identify the main criteria affecting the pipeline and to estimate the reaction and response of the streams to it, as well as to estimate the risk situation and increase the response of stream and rivers.
Method and result
In this study, using the Pipeline Risk Screening Matrix (PRSM) and the ANP model Iran gas trunk – line 9 (IGAT 9), erosion risk has been investigated. In the ANP model, first four main criteria including the criteria "pipeline situation to the streams", "Hydrogeomorphology", "geomorphology" and "other environmental factors", factors were compared with a total of 36 sub-criteria. Also, in order to prepare maps used in this research, 10 meters Dem, 1/10,000 m. Aerial photographs, 1/50000, 1954 and 1/10000, 2005, satellite images of Land sat 2018 were also used. The software used in this article includes GIS and Super Decision and Google Mapper.
Conclusion
In general, it follows that from the four criteria examined ("pipeline situation to the streams", "Hydrogeomorphology", "geomorphology" and "other environmental factors") using the ANP method, the criterion " pipeline situation to the streams relative to the stream and Rivers "have the highest risk profile and response to pipeline hazards. Then three other criteria are in the following stages: geomorphology, hydrogeomorphology, and other environmental factors. The most important sub-criteria with the highest risk and response status of the river and river are four of the criteria mentioned below are "construction method", "mountain", "stream displacement" and "geology". Therefore, km 90+ to 110+ in northern Shushtar and km 150+ to 165+ in East Dezful, the ninth gas pipeline has the highest risk profile as well as increased river and river reactivity, which is in the geomorphology unit Mountains are in need of management-engineering measures, as well as a redefinition of the plan for managing the risks of erosion of the river and the river. For decrease of stream response risk and improvement Iran gas trunk – line 9, need to tight management – engineering measurements and Geomorphologically in case of erosion stream and restoration and review of project of rout line.
Conclusion
In general, it follows that from the four criteria examined ("pipeline situation to the streams", "Hydrogeomorphology", "geomorphology" and "other environmental factors") using the ANP method, the criterion " pipeline situation to the streams relative to the stream and Rivers "have the highest risk profile and response to pipeline hazards. Then three other criteria are in the following stages: geomorphology, hydrogeomorphology, and other environmental factors. The most important sub-criteria with the highest risk and response status of the river and river are four of the criteria mentioned below are "construction method", "mountain", "stream displacement" and "geology". Therefore, km 90+ to 110+ in northern Shushtar and km 150+ to 165+ in East Dezful, the ninth gas pipeline has the highest risk profile as well as increased river and river reactivity, which is in the geomorphology unit Mountains are in need of management-engineering measures, as well as a redefinition of the plan for managing the risks of erosion of the river and the river. For decrease of stream response risk and improvement Iran gas trunk – line 9, need to tight management – engineering measurements and Geomorphologically in case of erosion stream and restoration and review of project of rout line.
Conclusion
In general, it follows that from the four criteria examined ("pipeline situation to the streams", "Hydrogeomorphology", "geomorphology" and "other environmental factors") using the ANP method, the criterion " pipeline situation to the streams relative to the stream and Rivers "have the highest risk profile and response to pipeline hazards. Then three other criteria are in the following stages: geomorphology, hydrogeomorphology, and other environmental factors. The most important sub-criteria with the highest risk and response status of the river and river are four of the criteria mentioned below are "construction method", "mountain", "stream displacement" and "geology". Therefore, km 90+ to 110+ in northern Shushtar and km 150+ to 165+ in East Dezful, the ninth gas pipeline has the highest risk profile as well as increased river and river reactivity, which is in the geomorphology unit Mountains are in need of management-engineering measures, as well as a redefinition of the plan for managing the risks of erosion of the river and the river. For decrease of stream response risk and improvement Iran gas trunk – line 9, need to tight management – engineering measurements and Geomorphologically in case of erosion stream and restoration and review of project of rout line.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Hazard
  • stream erosion
  • gas pipeline
  • pipeline risk screening matrix
  • Iran gas trunk line-9. Introduction
آقانباتی، سیدعلی (1383). زمینشناسی ایران، تهران: انتشارات سازمان زمین‌شناسی و اکتشافات کشور.
احمدی، امیر (1391). مکانیسم شکل‏زای کواترنری بر روی ماسهسنگ آغاجاری در شمالغرب مسجد سلیمان، پایانامة کارشناسی ارشد، دانشکدة جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران.
احمدی، علی‌حسین (1393). شناسایی پهنه‏های آسیبپذیر مسیر خطوط انتقال نفت وگاز با تأکید بر پارامترهای ژئومورفولوژیکی (مطالعةموردی: محدودةشمال غربی مسجد سلیمان)، پایانامة کارشناسی ارشد، گروه جغرافیای طبیعی.
تهرانی، خسرو (1374). چینه‌شناسی ایران، انتشارات کلیدر.
مطیعی، همایون (1372). زمین‌شناسی ایران: چینه‌شناسی زاگرس، انتشارات سازمان زمین‌شناسی کشور.
Aghanabati, S.A. (2003). Iran Geology, Public by Geological Survey & Mineral Explorations of Iran (GSI).
Ahmadi, A. (2013). Quaternary morphogenesis of mechanism on Aghajari sandstone in Northwest Masjed - soleyman. MS, University of Tehran.
Ahmadi, A.; Moghimi, E.; Zamanzadeh, S.M. and Motamed, R. (2015). The Effect of Sandstone Composition on Distribution of Tafoni Landforms in the Aghajari Sandstone, Northwest of Masjed Soleyman, Iran, Hindawi Publishing Corporation Advances in Geology, Article ID 862714: 10.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) (2012). Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems, ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31.
Anifowose, B.; Lawler, D.; Horst, D. and Champion, L. (2014). Evaluating interdiction of oil pipelines at river crossings using Environmental Impact Assessments, Area, 46.1, 4-17, doi: 10.1111/area.12065.
Canadian energy pipeline association (2014). Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Canadian Standards Association, Oil and gas pipeline systems. Z662-07. (2007). Copyright © Canadian Standards Association.
Castro, J.M. (2010). Pipelines & Stream Crossings: a new tool for determining relative risk, Presented at: Department of the Interior, Conference on the Environment, April 26th-30th, 2010.
Castro, J.M. (2011). Should I be concerned? Screening projects using RiverRAT, Presented at: Salmon Recovery Funding Board, Salmon Recovery Conference, April 26th-27th, 2011, Grand Mound, Washington.
Cluer, B.; Thorne, C.R.; Castro, J.M.; Pess, G.; Beechie, T.; Shea, C. and Skidmore, P. (2010). Tools and Science Base for Evaluating Stream Engineering, Management, and Restoration Proposals, Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Conference 2010, Las Vegas, Nevada (June 2010).
Dastgir, N. (2013). Geohazard Modelling of Onshore Pipelines in Kenya, Natural Hazard for insurers.
Girgin, S. and Krausmann, E. (2015). Lessons learned from oil pipeline natech accidents and recommendations for natech scenario development, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen. Elisabeth Krausmann, Address: Joint Research Centre, Via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy. Joint Research Centre.
Glass, M.; Hatcher, K.; Betcher, M. and Hansen, E. (2016). Guidance for Monitoring Effects of Gas Pipeline Development on Surface Water and Groundwater Supplies, Published by downstream strategy.
INGAA Foundation (1998). River and Stream Crossings Study (Phase I). Copyright © 1998.
Mobin, S. and Goryainov, U.A. (2007). Constraction and operation of pipeline projects in Pakistan – associate risk and their solution, Oil and Gas Business.
Motiei, H. (1993). Stratigraphy of Zagros, Tehran: Geological Survey of Iran.
Ogwu, F.A. (2011). Challenges of Oil and Gas Pipeline Network and the role of Physical Planners in Nigeria, FORUM Ejournal, 10: 41-51.
Rizkalla, M. (2008). Pipeline geo-environmental design and geohazard management American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), USA: New York.
Sakhalin Energy Investment Company LTD. (2003). Comparative Environmental Analysis of the Piltun-Astokh Field Pipeline Route Options, BM Code: EP.17.03.07.03.
Sakhalin Energy Investment Company LTD. (2006). Comparative Environmental Analysis of the Piltun-Astokh Field Pipeline Route Options, BM Code: EP.17.03.07.03.
Sakhalin Energy Investment Company LTD. (2006). Comparative Environmental Analysis of the Piltun-Astokh Field Pipeline Route Options, BM Code: EP.17.03.07.03.
Tehrani, K. (1994). Iran stratigraphy, Public, Klidar. 250 pp.
Thorne, C.; Castro, J.; Cluer, B.; Skidmore, P. and Shea, C. (2015). Project risk screening matrix for river management and restoration, River research and applications, River Res. Applic, 31: 611-626.
Veldman, W.M. (1983). Arctic Pipeline River Crossings, Design Trends and Lessons Learned, Prepared for the American Society of Civil Engineers, Specialty Conference on Pipelines in Adverse Environments, San Diego, California.