Risk assessment and safety prevention and control of key subsystems in shale oil gathering and transportation process

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.11.0621

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to improve the safety of the shale oil gathering and transportation process, this paper took the shale oil gathering and transportation process under the in-situ transformation technology of superheated steam injection of oil shale as the evaluation object. In the process of shale oil gathering and transportation, the hazard were analyzed and the whole process was divided into three subsystems. The risk of each subsystem was analyzed qualitatively by using hazard and operability analysis(HAZOP) method. According to the results of the qualitative analysis, the probability of fire and explosion accidents and the risk grade of each subsystem were calculated by using layer of protection analysis(LOPA) and Dow fire and explosion index(F&EI) method. The nodes of shale oil gathering and transportation process were divided, and Bow-tie models for oil and gas leakage accidents containing hydrogen sulfide and oil and gas leakage accidents after purification were established respectively. Based on results of risk assessment, effective safety prevention and control measures were developed. The results show that the subsystems that may cause accidents in the oil and gas gathering and transportation process are: steam generation system, cooling separation system, ammonia desulfurization system and cooling separation system, in which the leakage of the steam generation system will not cause fire and explosion accidents, and the fire and explosion risk grades of the remaining subsystems are: ammonia desulfurization system, cooling separation system and gas extraction and desulfurization system in order from heavy to light.

Key words: shale oil, oil and gas gathering and transportation, critical subsystem, risk assessment, safety prevention, in-situ conversion technology

CLC Number:

X913.4安全系统工程

WANG Chaojie, LIU Wanxin, LI Kai, ZOU Zhuochen, XU Changhang. Risk assessment and safety prevention and control of key subsystems in shale oil gathering and transportation process[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(11): 131-139.

Figures/Tables 6

Table 1

Summary of deviation causes

系统	压力	流量	温度	液位		组分
蒸汽发生^[18]	下游用气设备故障停止用气; 压力表连通管堵塞冻结或指示压力不正确; 安全阀故障; 超压报警器失效; 进塔管线压力报警; 控制气动阀门失效; 蒸汽发生塔内管线结垢; 蒸汽管道法兰泄漏	蒸汽流量表假高; 进塔管线气动调节阀失效; 水泵故障; 给水自动调节器故障; 给水管线堵塞; 进塔管线法兰泄漏	冷水温度高; 给水温度过低	操作人员操作失误过量给水; 蒸汽发生器液位计显示仪表假低; 锅炉液位表显示模糊不清; 液位表堵塞、漏水; 运行人员未实时注意水位; 水泵故障; 锅炉排污阀误开; 低水位保护装置失灵		水处理不当
分却分离	自井口来的页岩油气压力高或低; 压力表报警系统假低; 气相管线阀门误关及气动调节阀故障关闭; 管道堵塞; 安全阀故障起跳; 管道阀门误开; 管线腐蚀、泄漏	自井口来的页岩油气流量高或低; 三级分离器液相出口流量计假低; 管线法兰泄漏; 物料回流至井内	自井口来的页岩油气温度高或低; 各级换热器物料出口温度高; 环境温度低	各级分离器底部泥沙沉积堵塞出口; 液位计显示假低; 自井口来的页岩油气液相组分不足		上游来料组分含有杂质
氨法脱硫	自上游的页岩气压力高或低; 压力报警远程控制器失效; 脱硫塔塔顶气相管线阀门误关; 管道、塔板堵塞; 管线腐蚀、泄漏	自上游来的页岩气流量高或低; 管线法兰泄漏	页岩油气温度高; 各级换热器物料出口温度高; 环境温度低或自上游来的页岩油气温度低	往结晶槽出塔管线堵塞; 液位计报警仪表假低	吸收液 pH过高
提气除硫	自上游的页岩气压力高或低; 压力报警远程控制器失效; 脱硫塔塔顶气相管线阀门误关; 管道、塔板堵塞; 管线腐蚀、泄漏	自上游来的页岩气流量高或低; 管线法兰泄漏	页岩油气温度高; 各级换热器物料出口温度高; 环境温度低或自上游来的页岩油气温度低	往结晶槽出塔管线堵塞; 液位计报警仪表假低	吸收液 pH过高

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Fig.1

Fig.2

References 23

[1]	兰晶. 典型非常规油气资源加工风险辨识与控制研究[D]. 东营: 中国石油大学(华东), 2014.
	LAN Jing. Research on risk identification and control technology of typical unconventional oil and gas processing[D]. Dongying: China University of Petroleum: East China, 2014.
[2]	张凤君, 刘兆煐, 李晨阳, 等. 油页岩原位开采的大气环境风险评估[J]. 科技导报, 2013, 31(26):44-47.
	ZHANG Fengjun, LIU Zhaoying, LI Chenyang, et al. Risk assessment of the atmospheric environmental during in-situ oil shale exploitation[J]. Science and Technology Review, 2013, 31(26):44-47.
[3]	刘胜英, 王世辉, 陈春瑞, 等. 壳牌公司页岩油开采技术与进展[J]. 大庆石油学院学报, 2007, 31(3):53-55,91.
	LIU Shengying, WANG Shihui, CHEN Chunrui, et al. Shell shale oil recovery technique and its progress[J]. Journal of Northeast Petroleum University, 2007, 31(3):53-55,91.
[4]	汪友平, 王益维, 孟祥龙, 等. 美国油页岩原位开采技术与启示[J]. 石油钻采工艺, 2013, 35(6):55-59.
	WANG Youping, WANG Yiwei, MENG Xianglong, et al. Enlightenment of American's oil shale in-situ retorting technology[J]. Oil Drilling and Production Technology, 2013, 35(6):55-59.
[5]	孙友宏, 郭威, 李强, 等. 中国油页岩原位转化技术现状与展望[J]. 石油科学通报, 2023, 8(4):475-490.
	SUN Youhong, GUO Wei, LI Qiang, et al. Current status and prospects of oil shale in-situ conversion technology in China[J]. Petroleum Science Bulletin, 2023, 8(4):475-490.
[6]	KANG Zhiqin, ZHAO Yangsheng, YANG Dong, et al. A pilot investigation of pyrolysis from oil and gas extraction from oil shale by in-situ superheated steam injection[J]. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2019, 186: DOI:10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106785.
[7]	贺文同. 油页岩原位转化条件下热解产物演化规律与反应进程研究[D]. 长春: 吉林大学, 2021.
	HE Wentong. Study on the evolution law and reaction process of pyrolysis products under the conditions of oil shale in-situ conversion[D]. Changchun: Jilin University, 2021.
[8]	牛毓, 范开辉, 王志超. 浅谈对石油中主要非烃组分的研究[J]. 广州化工, 2013, 41(15):56-58.
	NIU Yu, FAN Kaihui, WANG Zhichao. Research of the nonhydrocarbon constituents contained in petroleum[J]. Guangzhou Chemical Industry, 2013, 41(15):56-58.
[9]	张伟伟. 天然气站场HAZOP定量分析方法研究[D]. 北京: 中国石油大学(北京), 2017.
	ZHANG Weiwei. Research on HAZOP quantitative analysis of natural gas station[D]. Beijing: China University of Petroleum(Beijing), 2017.
[10]	付建民, 赵东风, 陈国明, 等. 石油化工装置HAZOP分析技术概率定量化研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2008, 8(6):130-134.
	FU Jianmin, ZHAO Dongfeng, CHEN Guoming, et al. Quantitative study over the probability of HAZOP analyzing technique in petro-chemical plants[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2008, 8(6):130-134.
[11]	CHERAGHI M, BALADEH A E, KHAKZAD N. A fuzzy multi-attribute HAZOP technique (FMA-HAZOP): application to gas wellhead facilities[J]. Safety Science, 2019, 114: 12-22.
[12]	潘益斌, 袁翔, 施准备. 基于风险评价指数矩阵法的水利水电工程运行状态分析[J]. 大坝与安全, 2016(1):46-49.
	PAN Yibin, YUAN Xiang, SHI Zhunbei. Operation state of hydropower projects based on risk assessment index matrix method[J]. Dam and Safety, 2016(1):46-49.
[13]	魏亚荣. 页岩气集输管道高后果区识别及风险评价技术研究[D]. 成都: 西南石油大学, 2019.
	WEI Yarong. Research on high-impact area identification and risk assessment technology of shale gas gathering and transportation pipeline[D]. Chengdu: Southwest Petroleum University, 2019.
[14]	顾文婷. 油气集输过程重大危险源的辨识及评价[D]. 兰州: 兰州理工大学, 2010.
	GU Wenting. Major hazard identification and evacuation of oil and gas gathering transportation process[D]. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University of Technology, 2010.
[15]	刘尚志, 历宏斌, 赵东风, 等. 基于HAZOP-Aspen的油气回收工艺风险分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(12):95-105. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.12.013
	LIU Shangzhi, LI Hongbin, ZHAO Dongfeng, et al. Risk analysis of oil and gas recovery process based on HAZOP-Aspen[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(12):95-105. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.12.013
[16]	辛保泉, 喻健良, 党文义, 等. 定量风险评估视域下的多组分混合物危险特性[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(4):80-85. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.04.012
	XIN Baoquan, YU Jianliang, DANG Wenyi, et al. Hazard characteristics of multi-component mixtures from perspective of quantitative risk assessment[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(4):80-85. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.04.012
[17]	武杰. 基于本质安全化的脱硫装置过程安全管理[D]. 东营: 中国石油大学(华东), 2016.
	WU Jie. Based on the inherent safety of the desulfurization process safety management[D]. Dongying: China University of Petroleum: East China, 2016.
[18]	陈兵, 刘泽兵. 大型燃煤锅炉热偏差分析及防治方案[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(增2):76-80.
	CHEN Bing, LIU Zebing. Analysis and prevention of thermal deviation of large coal-fired boiler[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(S2):76-80. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.S2.0190
[19]	Center for Chemical Process Safety CCPS. Guidelines for initiating events and independent protection layers in layer of protection analysis[M]. New York: Wiley, 2014:1-342.
[20]	杨磊, 倪腾源, 钱崇林, 等. 油田安全风险分级防控管理体系的构建与实施[J]. 化工安全与环境, 2022, 35(22):21-24.
	YANG Lei, NI Tengyuan, QIAN Chonglin, et al. Construction and implementation of oilfield safety risk classification prevention and control management system[J]. Chemical Safety and Environment, 2022, 35(22):21-24.
[21]	卢可义. 基于FLACS的原油管道硫化氢逸出扩散规律研究[J]. 石油工程建设, 2022, 48(5):67-69.
	LU Keyi. Research on hydrogen sulfide diffusion laws in crude oil pipelines based on FLACS[J]. Petroleum Engineering Construction, 2022, 48(5):67-69.
[22]	马亮, 雷月鑫, 陆海宁. 基于页岩气井口装置泄漏风险分析及安全防护探究[J]. 中国设备工程, 2020(5):136-137.
	MA Liang, LEI Yuexin, LU Haining. Based on the leakage risk analysis and safety protection of shale gas wellhead device[J]. China Plant Engineering, 2020(5):136-137.
[23]	李云龙. 油页岩原位开采井筒结构设计与研究[D]. 北京: 中国石油大学(北京), 2020.
	LI Yunlong. Structural design and research of oil shale in-situ mining shaft[D]. Beijing: China University of Petroleum(Beijing), 2020.

系统	压力	流量	温度	液位		组分
蒸汽发生^[18]	下游用气设备故障停止用气; 压力表连通管堵塞冻结或指示压力不正确; 安全阀故障; 超压报警器失效; 进塔管线压力报警; 控制气动阀门失效; 蒸汽发生塔内管线结垢; 蒸汽管道法兰泄漏	蒸汽流量表假高; 进塔管线气动调节阀失效; 水泵故障; 给水自动调节器故障; 给水管线堵塞; 进塔管线法兰泄漏	冷水温度高; 给水温度过低	操作人员操作失误过量给水; 蒸汽发生器液位计显示仪表假低; 锅炉液位表显示模糊不清; 液位表堵塞、漏水; 运行人员未实时注意水位; 水泵故障; 锅炉排污阀误开; 低水位保护装置失灵		水处理不当
分却分离	自井口来的页岩油气压力高或低; 压力表报警系统假低; 气相管线阀门误关及气动调节阀故障关闭; 管道堵塞; 安全阀故障起跳; 管道阀门误开; 管线腐蚀、泄漏	自井口来的页岩油气流量高或低; 三级分离器液相出口流量计假低; 管线法兰泄漏; 物料回流至井内	自井口来的页岩油气温度高或低; 各级换热器物料出口温度高; 环境温度低	各级分离器底部泥沙沉积堵塞出口; 液位计显示假低; 自井口来的页岩油气液相组分不足		上游来料组分含有杂质
氨法脱硫	自上游的页岩气压力高或低; 压力报警远程控制器失效; 脱硫塔塔顶气相管线阀门误关; 管道、塔板堵塞; 管线腐蚀、泄漏	自上游来的页岩气流量高或低; 管线法兰泄漏	页岩油气温度高; 各级换热器物料出口温度高; 环境温度低或自上游来的页岩油气温度低	往结晶槽出塔管线堵塞; 液位计报警仪表假低	吸收液 pH过高
提气除硫	自上游的页岩气压力高或低; 压力报警远程控制器失效; 脱硫塔塔顶气相管线阀门误关; 管道、塔板堵塞; 管线腐蚀、泄漏	自上游来的页岩气流量高或低; 管线法兰泄漏	页岩油气温度高; 各级换热器物料出口温度高; 环境温度低或自上游来的页岩油气温度低	往结晶槽出塔管线堵塞; 液位计报警仪表假低	吸收液 pH过高

系统	事故场景描述	后果修饰		独立保护层		平均事故发生概率(×10^-5)
系统	事故场景描述	事件	概率	描述	失效概率	无IPLS	有IPLS
冷却分离	气液分离罐超压泄漏,遇点火源爆炸	人在影响区内; 点火源	0.4 0.5	安全阀; 调节阀; 报警响应	0.01 0.1 0.1	46.30	0.02
冷却分离	管线泄漏,遇点火源爆炸	人在影响区内; 点火源	0.4 0.5	差压报警	0.04	784.40	31.38
氨法脱硫	脱硫塔超压泄漏, 遇点火源爆炸	人在影响区内; 点火源	0.4 0.5	安全阀; 调节阀; 报警响应	0.01 0.1 0.1	119.22	0.03
氨法脱硫	管线泄漏遇, 点火源爆炸	人在影响区内; 点火源	0.4 0.5	差压报警	0.04	687.00	27.48
系统	事故场景描述	后果修饰		独立保护层		平均事故发生概率(×10^-5)
系统	事故场景描述	事件	概率	描述	失效概率	无IPLS	有IPLS
提气除硫	提气脱硫塔超压泄漏, 遇点火源发生燃爆	人在影响区内; 点火源	0.4 0.5	安全阀; 调节阀; 报警响应	0.01 0.1 0.1	110.30	0.03
提气除硫	管线泄漏遇, 点火源爆炸	人在影响区内; 点火源	0.4 0.5	差压报警	0.04	756.40	30.26

系统	火灾、爆炸危险指数		危险等级
系统	安全补偿前	安全补偿后	安全补偿前	安全补偿后
冷却分离	148.05	60.7005	4级(很大)	1级(最小)
氨法脱硫	168	68.8	5级(非常大)	2级(较轻)
提气除硫	157.185	64.45	4级(很大)	2级(较轻)

关键子系统	后果	无保护措施的风险等级				添加保护措施的风险等级
关键子系统	后果	概率	S	L	R	概率	S'	L'	R'
冷却分离系统	发生火灾、爆炸事故	8.3×10^-3	Ⅲ	3	4	3.14×10^-4	Ⅰ	2	1
氨法脱硫系统	发生火灾、爆炸事故	8.0×10^-3	Ⅳ	3	5	2.8×10^-4	Ⅰ	2	2
提气除硫系统	发生火灾、爆炸事故	8.7×10^-3	Ⅲ	3	4	3.0×10^-4	Ⅰ	2	2