Oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment method

Abstract

The embodiment of the invention provides an oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment method, which can solve the technical problem of low accuracy of a risk assessment result for a pipeline system. The method comprises the following steps: determining a first scoring result of a target pipe section; determining a second scoring result based on a second preset condition; obtaining a first evaluation value based on the first scoring result and the second scoring result; the first evaluation value is used for representing a misoperation occurrence evaluation result of the target pipe section; obtaining a second evaluation value according to the ratio of the operation pressure of the target pipe section to the design pressure; determining a third evaluation value of the target pipe section; the third evaluation value is the sum of pipe section risk results corresponding to different sub-conditions in a third preset condition; the sub-condition comprises a protection index of the target pipe section; obtaining a fourth evaluation value based on the influence consequence grade of the target pipe section; and obtaining a risk comprehensive index based on the first evaluation value, the second evaluation value, the third evaluation value and the fourth evaluation value.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present application relates to the technical field of oil and gas storage and transportation safety and maintenance, and in particular to a method for assessing the risk of misoperation of an oil and gas pipeline. Background Art

[0002] Oil and gas pipelines are a relatively safe means of transporting energy. However, due to their numerous locations and lengths, complex surrounding environments, and numerous risk factors, pipeline system integrity research is essential for ensuring safe oil and gas transportation. This research focuses on the pipeline equipment itself, specifically its equipment failures. As pipeline reliability improves, the impact of human factors on pipeline accidents has become a key focus of pipeline system integrity research.

[0003] At present, by manually analyzing the human factors that cause pipeline accidents, we can prevent or reduce the impact of human factors and provide a basis for ensuring the safe operation of pipelines.

[0004] However, the incomplete consideration of human analysis factors leads to incomplete research on pipeline system integrity and inaccurate risk assessment results. Summary of the Invention

[0005] The embodiment of the present application provides a method for assessing the risk of misoperation in an oil and gas pipeline, which can solve the technical problem of low accuracy of risk assessment results for pipeline systems.

[0006] To achieve the above objectives, the embodiments of the present application adopt the following technical solutions:

[0007] In a first aspect, an embodiment of the present application provides a method for assessing the risk of misoperation of an oil and gas pipeline, which includes: determining a first scoring result of a target pipe section; the first scoring result is the product of the pipe section risk results corresponding to different sub-conditions in the first preset condition; the sub-condition includes the working environment index of the target pipe section; based on the second preset condition, determining the second scoring result; the second preset condition includes the attribute index of the target pipe section; based on the first scoring result and the second scoring result, obtaining a first evaluation value; the first evaluation value is used to characterize the evaluation result of the occurrence of misoperation of the target pipe section; according to the ratio of the operating pressure of the target pipe section to the design pressure, obtaining the second evaluation value; determining a third evaluation value of the target pipe section; the third evaluation value is the sum of the pipe section risk results corresponding to different sub-conditions in the third preset condition; the sub-condition includes the protection index of the target pipe section; based on the impact consequence level of the target pipe section, obtaining a fourth evaluation value; based on the first evaluation value, the second evaluation value, the third evaluation value and the fourth evaluation value, obtaining a comprehensive risk index.

[0008] Based on the above description of the oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment method provided in the embodiment of the present application, it can be seen that the oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment method includes obtaining parameters such as the possibility of oil and gas pipeline misoperation, the possibility of leakage, the effectiveness of protective measures, and the level of leakage consequences, and then obtaining an oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk comprehensive index based on the above four parameters, thereby making the obtained misoperation risk comprehensive index more accurate, and being able to achieve more accurate ranking of oil and gas pipeline misoperation risks, quantify the indicators of misoperation, and propose risk control measures for types, further reducing the difficulty of management in quantifying and reducing the subjectivity of qualitative evaluation.

[0009] In a feasible implementation of the first aspect, the calculation formula of the comprehensive risk index includes:

[0010] R = T × L × (1-S) × C;

[0011] Among them, T represents the first evaluation value; L represents the second evaluation value; S represents the third evaluation value; and C represents the fourth evaluation value.

[0012] In a feasible implementation of the first aspect, the attribute indicators include the types of oil and gas stations on both sides of the target pipeline section, the pipeline commissioning year of the target pipeline section, and failure events of the target pipeline section.

[0013] In a feasible implementation of the first aspect, the closer the age interval of the pipeline commissioning age of the target pipeline section is, the greater the second score result is.

[0014] In a feasible implementation of the first aspect, the interval in which the ratio of the operating pressure of the target pipe section to the design pressure lies is any one of the first pressure ratio interval, the second pressure ratio interval or the third pressure ratio interval; the minimum value of the first pressure ratio interval is greater than or equal to the maximum value of the second pressure ratio interval; the minimum value of the second pressure ratio interval is greater than or equal to the maximum value of the third pressure ratio interval; compared with the second pressure ratio interval, when the interval in which the ratio of the operating pressure of the target pipe section to the design pressure lies is the first pressure ratio interval, the second evaluation value is greater.

[0015] In the feasible implementation method of the first aspect, the protection indicators include station valve room hazard identification indicators, daily inspection indicators, mechanical failure protection indicators, safety protection system indicators, procedures and operating instructions indicators, communication and control indicators, data and information management indicators, training indicators, health inspection indicators and maintenance plan implementation indicators.

[0016] In a feasible implementation of the first aspect,

[0017]

[0018] Among them, the value of i can be 1-10; B1 represents the station valve room hazard identification index; B2 represents the daily inspection index; B3 represents the mechanical failure protection index; B4 represents the safety protection system index; B5 represents the procedure and operation guidance index; B6 represents the communication and control index; B7 represents the data and information management index; B8 represents the training index; B9 represents the health inspection index; B 10 Expressed as an indicator of maintenance plan execution.

[0019] In a feasible implementation of the first aspect, a maximum value is set for the pipe section risk result corresponding to the mechanical failure protection index; and a maximum value is set for the pipe section risk result corresponding to the safety protection system index.

[0020] In a second aspect, an embodiment of the present application provides an oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment system, which includes: at least one processor; a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor; wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, and the instructions are executed by the at least one processor to enable the at least one processor to execute the method provided in the first aspect.

[0021] The oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment system executes the method provided in the first aspect. After obtaining parameters such as the possibility of oil and gas pipeline misoperation, the possibility of leakage, the effectiveness of protective measures, and the level of leakage consequences, it obtains the oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk comprehensive index based on the above four parameters, thereby making the obtained misoperation risk comprehensive index more accurate, enabling more accurate ranking of oil and gas pipeline misoperation risks, quantifying misoperation indicators, and proposing risk control measures for specific types, further reducing the difficulty of management in quantifying and reducing the subjectivity of qualitative evaluation.

[0022] In a third aspect, an embodiment of the present application provides a computer-readable medium having computer program instructions stored thereon, and the computer program instructions can be executed by a processor to implement the method provided in the first aspect.

[0023] The computer program instructions in the computer-readable medium implement the method provided by the first aspect. After obtaining parameters such as the possibility of oil and gas pipeline misoperation, the possibility of leakage, the effectiveness of protective measures, and the level of leakage consequences, the comprehensive index of oil and gas pipeline misoperation risks is obtained based on the above four parameters. This makes the obtained comprehensive index of misoperation risks more accurate, enables more accurate ranking of oil and gas pipeline misoperation risks, quantifies misoperation indicators, and proposes risk control measures for specific types, further reducing the difficulty of management in quantifying and reducing the subjectivity of qualitative evaluation. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0024] Figure 1 A schematic diagram of the structure of an oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment system provided in an embodiment of the present application;

[0025] Figure 2 A flow chart of a method for assessing the risk of misoperation in oil and gas pipelines provided in an embodiment of the present application. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0026] The technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention will be described below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings in the embodiments of the present invention. In the description of the embodiments of the present invention, unless otherwise specified, "multiple" refers to two or more than two. "At least one of the following" or similar expressions refers to any combination of these items, including any combination of single items or plural items. For example, at least one of a, b, or c can represent: a, b, c, ab, ac, bc, or abc, where a, b, and c can be single or multiple.

[0027] In addition, in order to facilitate the clear description of the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention, in the embodiments of the present invention, words such as "first" and "second" are used to distinguish between identical or similar items with substantially the same functions and effects. Those skilled in the art will understand that words such as "first" and "second" do not limit the quantity and execution order, and words such as "first" and "second" do not necessarily limit differences. At the same time, in the embodiments of the present invention, words such as "exemplary" or "for example" are used to indicate examples, illustrations or explanations. Any embodiment or design scheme described as "exemplary" or "for example" in the embodiments of the present invention should not be interpreted as being more preferred or advantageous than other embodiments or design schemes. Specifically, the use of words such as "exemplary" or "for example" is intended to present related concepts in a concrete way for easy understanding.

[0028] The principles and features of the present application are described below. The examples given are only used to explain the present application and are not used to limit the scope of the present application.

[0029] The embodiment of the present application provides a method for assessing the risk of misoperation in oil and gas pipelines, which is applicable to oil and gas transmission pipelines and can accurately and efficiently complete the risk assessment of misoperation. The embodiment of the present application effectively solves the risk masking phenomenon existing in the traditional scoring method by constructing a risk assessment index system and system, and can achieve more accurate ranking of the risk of misoperation in oil and gas pipelines, quantify the indicators of misoperation, and propose targeted risk control measures, thereby reducing the difficulty of quantifying the management object and the subjectivity of qualitative evaluation. It has important theoretical and practical significance for pipeline risk control and risk mitigation, and provides a basis for the subsequent risk management of misoperation factors.

[0030] An embodiment of the present application provides an oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment system that can execute the oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment method provided in the embodiment of the present application. Figure 1 A schematic structural diagram of an oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment system provided in an embodiment of the present application.

[0031] like Figure 1 As shown, the oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment system 001 includes at least one processor 011 and a memory 012 communicatively connected to the at least one processor; wherein the memory 012 stores instructions that can be executed by the at least one processor 011, and the instructions are executed by the at least one processor 011 so that the at least one processor 011 can execute the oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment method provided in an embodiment of the present application.

[0032] Figure 2 This is a flow chart of a method for assessing the risk of misoperation of an oil and gas pipeline provided in an embodiment of the present application. Figure 2 As shown, in some embodiments, the oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment method includes the following steps:

[0033] S1, determining a first evaluation value.

[0034] In some embodiments, when executing step S1, the oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment method further includes the following steps:

[0035] S11, determining a first scoring result of the target pipe segment.

[0036] The first scoring result is the product of the pipeline segment risk results corresponding to different sub-conditions in the first preset condition. The sub-conditions include the working environment indicators of the target pipeline segment.

[0037] Different sub-conditions in the first preset condition correspond to different pipeline risk results. The sub-conditions include the working environment indicators of the target pipeline. The working environment indicators include the ability level of the on-site personnel (T1). The ability level of the on-site personnel (T1) includes work experience (T 11 ), job skills (T 12 ), work with certificate (T 13 ). Work experience (T 11 The longer the working experience, the smaller the score. Job skills (T 12 ) the weaker the proficiency, the higher the score.

[0038] In some embodiments, the calculation formula for the capability level (T1) of the on-site personnel includes:

[0039]

[0040] S12: Determine a second scoring result based on a second preset condition.

[0041] The second preset condition includes attribute indicators of the target pipeline segment, which include the types of oil and gas stations on both sides of the target pipeline segment, the pipeline commissioning year of the target pipeline segment, and failure events of the target pipeline segment.

[0042] The attribute indicators include the type of oil and gas stations on both sides of the target pipeline segment (T2), the pipeline commissioning years on both sides of the target pipeline segment (T3), and the failure events (caused by misoperation) on both sides of the target pipeline segment (T4).

[0043] The oil and gas transmission station type (T2) includes hub station, liaison station, or general station. The scores corresponding to hub station, liaison station, and general station decrease gradually.

[0044] The age of the pipeline (T3) is used to measure the automation level of the station. The older the age, the lower the score.

[0045] S13: Obtain a first evaluation value based on the first scoring result and the second scoring result.

[0046] The first evaluation value is used to represent an evaluation result of an erroneous operation of the target pipe section.

[0047] The possibility of misoperation occurring in the pipe section to be evaluated is obtained, and a score of the possibility of misoperation occurring is determined.

[0048] In some embodiments, the possibility of misoperation is related to four aspects: the ability level of on-site personnel (T1), the type of oil and gas station (T2), the year the pipeline was put into operation (T3), and the failure events caused by misoperation (T4).

[0049] In some embodiments, the following formula is used to determine the binary value of the possibility of misoperation of the evaluated pipe section:

[0050] In one implementation, the scores corresponding to the possibility of erroneous operation may be the scores listed in Table 1, where a larger score indicates a greater risk.

[0051] Table 1 Scores corresponding to the probability of erroneous operation

[0052]

[0053] As shown in Table 1, the closer the time interval of the pipeline commissioning year of the target pipeline section is, the greater the second score result is.

[0054] For example, the pipeline from the first station to the first station field of an oil pipeline (hereinafter referred to as the "first pipeline section", including the first station but excluding the first station field), the pipeline from the first station field to the second station field (hereinafter referred to as the "second pipeline section", including the first station field but excluding the second station field), and the pipeline from the second station field to the third station field (hereinafter referred to as the "third pipeline section", including the second station field but excluding the third station field) are selected.

[0055] The following describes the scores for the first, second, and third pipeline sections based on the competence level of on-site personnel (T1), the type of oil and gas station (T2), the year the pipeline was commissioned (T3), and the failure events caused by misoperation (T4).

[0056] The working experience of the employees in the first section is 3-10 years. 11 ) score is 0.5, the first section corresponds to the job skills (T 12 ) score is 0.9, the first pipe section corresponds to the certificate (T 13 ) is scored as 1. Based on The score of the capability level (T1) of the on-site personnel corresponding to the first pipe section is 0.5x0.9x1=0.45.

[0057] The working experience of the employees in the second section is 3-10 years. 11 ) score is 0.5, and the job skills corresponding to the second section (T 12 ) score is 0.9, and the second pipe section corresponds to the certificate holder (T 13 ) is scored as 1. Based on The score of the capability level (T1) of the on-site personnel corresponding to the second pipe section is 0.5x0.9x1=0.45.

[0058] The work experience of employees in the third section is less than 3 years. 11 ) score is 0.7, and the job skills corresponding to the third section (T 12 ) score is 0.9, and the third section corresponds to the certificate-holding (T 13 ) is scored as 1. Based on The score of the capability level (T1) of the on-site personnel corresponding to the third pipe section is 0.7x0.9x1=0.63.

[0059] The first and third pipeline sections are general stations. The first pipeline section has a score of 0.85 for the oil and gas station type (T2). The third pipeline section has a score of 0.85 for the oil and gas station type (T2). The second station in the second pipeline section is a hub station. The second pipeline section has a score of 1.1 for the oil and gas station type (T2).

[0060] The first, second, and third pipeline sections were all built between 2000 and 2017. The first pipeline section received a score of 0.9 for the pipeline commissioning year (T3), the second pipeline section received a score of 0.9, and the third pipeline section received a score of 0.9 for the pipeline commissioning year (T3).

[0061] No pipeline failure events due to misoperation occurred in the first, second, and third pipe sections. The score for the failure event due to misoperation (T4) for the first pipe section is 1.0. The score for the failure event due to misoperation (T4) for the second pipe section is 1.0. The score for the failure event due to misoperation (T4) for the second pipe section is 1.0.

[0062] based on The score of the misoperation failure probability T of the first pipe section is 0.45x0.85x0.9x1=0.34.

[0063] based on The score of the erroneous operation failure probability T of the second pipe section is 0.45x1.1x0.9x1=0.44.

[0064] based on The score of the misoperation failure probability T of the third pipe section is 0.63x0.85x0.9x1=0.48.

[0065] S2, obtaining a second evaluation value according to the ratio of the operating pressure of the target pipe section to the design pressure.

[0066] Obtain the possibility of pipeline leakage caused by misoperation of the pipeline section to be evaluated, and determine the score of the possibility of pipeline leakage caused by misoperation of the target pipeline.

[0067] The likelihood of a pipeline leak due to misoperation is determined by obtaining a ratio of the operating pressure of the target pipeline to the design pressure. Exemplarily, a score for the likelihood that the internal pressure of the pipeline will reach the maximum allowable operating pressure is determined based on the ratio of the operating pressure to the design pressure.

[0068] The following describes a feasible implementation method for determining a score for the possibility of leakage in a target pipeline due to misoperation.

[0069] In some embodiments, a score is assigned based on the calculated range of the ratio of operating pressure to design pressure. For example, the scores corresponding to the likelihood of leakage due to misoperation can be based on the scores listed in Table 2, where a higher score indicates a greater risk. The scores are divided into three levels: less than 0.6, greater than or equal to 0.6 and less than 0.8, and greater than 0.8, with the scores for each level increasing in order. In other words, the higher the operating pressure, the higher the likelihood of leakage due to misoperation in the target pipeline.

[0070] Table 2 Scores corresponding to the possibility of leakage caused by misoperation

[0071] Serial number Operating pressure / design pressure Score 1 >0.8 0.7 2 0.6-0.8 0.5 3 <0.6 0.3

[0072] As shown in Table 2, the ratio of the operating pressure to the design pressure of the target pipe section is within any of the first pressure ratio range (e.g., >0.8), the second pressure ratio range (e.g., 0.6-0.8), or the third pressure ratio range (e.g., <0.6). The minimum value of the first pressure ratio range (e.g., 0.8) is greater than or equal to the maximum value of the second pressure ratio range (e.g., 0.8). The minimum value of the second pressure ratio range (e.g., 0.6) is greater than or equal to the maximum value of the third pressure ratio range (e.g., 0.6).

[0073] Compared with the second pressure ratio range (eg, 0.6-0.8), when the ratio of the operating pressure to the design pressure of the target pipe section is in the first pressure ratio range (eg, >0.8), the second evaluation value is larger, 0.7.

[0074] For example, the operating pressure / design pressure ratio of the first pipe segment is 0.8. The operating pressure / design pressure ratios of the second and third pipe segments are both between 0.6 and 0.8. The probability score for leakage due to misoperation corresponding to the first pipe segment is 0.7. The probability score for leakage due to misoperation corresponding to the second pipe segment is 0.5. The probability score for leakage due to misoperation corresponding to the third pipe segment is 0.5.

[0075] S3, determining a third evaluation value of the target pipe segment.

[0076] The third evaluation value is the sum of the pipe section risk results corresponding to different sub-conditions in the third preset condition.

[0077] The sub-conditions include the protection index of the target pipe section.

[0078] Obtain the protective measures taken by the pipeline section to be evaluated against the risk factors of misoperation, and determine the score of the protective measures.

[0079] In some embodiments, the calculation formula for the score of the protective measure includes:

[0080]

[0081] Among them, the value of i can be 1-10; the value of i can be 1-10; B1 represents the station valve room hazard identification index; B2 represents the daily inspection index; B3 represents the mechanical failure protection index; B4 represents the safety protection system index; B5 represents the procedure and operation guidance index; B6 represents the communication and control index; B7 represents the data and information management index; B8 represents the training index; B9 represents the health inspection index; B 10 Expressed as an indicator of maintenance plan execution.

[0082] In one implementation, determining B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, and B 10 score, and then determine the score of the protective measures.

[0083] The following explains them separately.

[0084] Identification of hazards in the station valve room (B1) can be scored by "whether the hazards related to the station valve room and its operating status are fully identified", "whether all possible hazardous events are considered", and "whether comprehensive failure mode identification is carried out".

[0085] In one implementation, the scores for station valve room hazard identification (B1) may be the scores listed in Table 3. A larger B1 score indicates a smaller hazard.

[0086] Table 3 Station valve room hazard identification score

[0087] Serial number Evaluation indicators Score 1 comprehensive 6 2 generally 3 3 none 0

[0088] Daily inspections (B2) can be scored based on the "degree of importance attached to daily inspections." Factors used to evaluate the degree of importance can include "identifying areas of increased risk and hidden dangers, including temperature testing and leak detection." The greater the importance attached to daily inspections, the higher the score for Daily Inspections (B2).

[0089] In this way, the greater the score of the protective measure, the more indirectly it can prevent pipeline failure events that may be caused by misoperation.

[0090] In one implementation, the scores for daily inspection (B2) may be those listed in Table 4. A larger B2 score indicates a lower risk.

[0091] Table 4 Daily inspection recognition score

[0092] Serial number Evaluation indicators Score 1 Pay attention to 5 2 generally 3 3 Not paying attention 0

[0093] Mechanical failure protection (B3): the more reliable the protection measures, the greater the B3 score.

[0094] Protective measures can effectively reduce risks and prevent misoperation, and can be mechanical devices or electrical controls.

[0095] In one implementation, the score for mechanical failure protection (B3) may be the score listed in Table 5.

[0096] For example, in the case of multiple protective measures, B3 can be the sum of the scores of the multiple measures, and the maximum value does not exceed 15. If the sum of the scores of the multiple measures is greater than 15, B3 is recorded as 15. The larger the B3 score, the less harmful it is.

[0097] Table 5 Mechanical failure protection identification score

[0098] Serial number Evaluation indicators Score 1 Remote control of key operation computers 10 2 Locking device 5 3 Hardware logic control of key operations 5 4 Eye-catching signs for key equipment operations 4 5 none 0

[0099] Safety protection system (B4). The more reliable the safety system, the greater the B4 score. The safety system can reduce the possibility of accidents caused by pipeline overpressure due to misoperation.

[0100] In one implementation, the score for the safety protection system (B4) can be the scores listed in Table 6. For example, if multiple safety systems are included, B4 can be the sum of the scores for each of the multiple systems, with the maximum value not exceeding 18. If the sum of the scores for each of the multiple systems is greater than 18, B4 is recorded as 18. A higher B4 score indicates a lower risk.

[0101] Table 6 Safety protection system identification score

[0102] Serial number Evaluation indicators Score 1 Intrinsically safe 10 2 Two or more levels of on-site protection 8 3 Remote Monitoring 7 4 Only single-stage local protection 6 5 Remote monitoring or overpressure alarm 5 6 Equipped with overpressure manual protection system 2 7 Equipped with overpressure manual protection system 0

[0103] Procedures and Work Instructions (B5) can be scored based on the "operating procedures and work instructions for pipeline operations and their implementation." A higher B5 score indicates a more comprehensive procedure. This results in a higher score for protective measures, significantly reducing operational variability.

[0104] In one implementation, the scores for the procedures and work instructions (B5) may be the scores listed in Table 7.

[0105] Table 7 Scoring of procedures and work instructions identification

[0106]

[0107] SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) Communication and Control (B6) can be scored by “verifying the working methods based on the communication between the site and the control center”.

[0108] The SCADA system is used to monitor pipeline operating conditions. Based on this data, operations (such as pump startup and shutdown, valve opening and closing) can be communicated and controlled before on-site operations begin, preventing operational errors.

[0109] In one implementation, the score for communication and control (B6) may be the score listed in Table 8. SCADA communication and control (B6) A larger score indicates a lower risk.

[0110] Table 8 SCADA communication and control identification scores

[0111]

[0112] Data and Information Management (B7) can be scored based on the "Completeness of Data and Information." This completeness evaluation includes the completeness of pipeline, station equipment, and facility data and information. The higher the completeness, the higher the B7 score. Complete pipeline, station equipment, and facility data and information serve as an important reference during operations. Consequently, the higher the score for protective measures, the less likely they are to cause operational errors.

[0113] In one implementation, the score for data and information management (B7) may be the score listed in Table 9. A larger B7 score indicates a lower risk.

[0114] Table 9 Data and information management recognition score

[0115]

[0116] Employee training (B8) can be scored based on “employee training content”.

[0117] In one implementation, the score for employee training (B8) can adopt the scores listed in Table 10. For example, when multiple employee training components are included, B8 can be the sum of the scores for each component, with the maximum value not exceeding 10. If the sum of the scores for each component is greater than 10, B8 is recorded as 10. A higher B8 score indicates a lower risk. It is understood that employee training is the first line of defense for preventing misoperation and reducing accidents. For the purposes of risk assessment, training for accident prevention is crucial.

[0118] Table 10 Employee Training Recognition Scores

[0119] Serial number Evaluation indicators Score 1 General subjects to product features 3 2 General subjects to repair and maintenance 1 3 Job operating procedures 2 4 emergency drills 1 5 General subjects to control and operation 1 6 General subjects to pipeline corrosion 1 7 General subjects to pipe stress 1 8 Regular retraining 1 9 Test Assessment 2 10 none 0

[0120] Health checks (B9) can be scored based on the operator's health status. Higher health scores are associated with higher scores. Understandably, the operator's health status can affect operational accuracy. Health checks can prevent operators from working while intoxicated or ill. In some situations, health checks can also be included as part of shift handover procedures.

[0121] In one implementation, the score of the health check (B9) may be the score listed in Table 11. A larger B9 score indicates a lower risk.

[0122] Table 11 Health check identification score

[0123] Serial number Evaluation indicators Score 1 have 2 2 none 0

[0124] Maintenance (repair) plan implementation status (B 10 ) can be scored based on the completeness and accuracy of equipment (device) maintenance procedures. This scoring is based on whether important pipeline operations or operations are planned in advance, whether the operations or operations are recorded, and whether maintenance is carried out according to plan.

[0125] In a possible implementation, the maintenance plan execution status (B 10 The scores listed in Table 12 can be used for the scores of B 10 The larger the score, the less harmful it is.

[0126] Table 12 Identification score of maintenance plan implementation

[0127]

[0128] In one implementation, if the hazard identification of the first pipe section is comprehensive, the score of B1 is 6. If the daily inspection of the first pipe section is taken seriously, the score of B2 is 5. The protection of mechanical errors in the first pipe section adopts remote control of key operations by computer, with a score of 10, and a locking device, with a score of 5, then the score of B3 is 15. The safety protection system of the first pipe section adopts intrinsic safety, with a score of 10, and two or more levels of on-site protection, with a score of 8, then B4 is recorded as 18. The procedures and operating instructions of the first pipe section are controlled, then the score of B5 is 15. The SCADA communication and control of the first pipe section are communicated and checked, then the score of B6 is 5. The data and information management of the first pipe section is relatively complete, then the score of B7 is 10. The first pipe section employee training is general subject to product characteristics, score 3, general subject to maintenance, score 1, job operation procedures, score 2, emergency drills, score 1, general subject to control and operation, score 1, general subject to pipeline corrosion, score 1, general subject to pipe stress, score 1, then B8 is recorded as 10. The first pipe section health inspection is available, then B9 score 2. The first pipe section maintenance (maintenance) plan is well implemented, then B 10 The score is 10. Based on The effectiveness of the misoperation protection measures of the first pipe section is calculated to be B = (B1 + B2 + ... + B9 + B 10 ) / 100=0.96.

[0129] In another implementation, if the hazard identification of the second pipe section is comprehensive, the score of B1 is 6. If the daily inspection of the second pipe section is emphasized, the score of B2 is 5. If the protection against mechanical errors in the second pipe section adopts remote control of key operations by computer, the score is 10, and the locking device is scored 5, the score of B3 is 15. The safety protection system of the second pipe section adopts intrinsic safety, the score is 10, and two or more levels of on-site protection are scored 8, so B4 is recorded as 18. If the procedures and operating instructions of the second pipe section are controlled, the score of B5 is 15. If the SCADA communication and control of the second pipe section are communicated and checked, the score of B6 is 5. If the data and information management of the second pipe section is relatively complete, the score of B7 is 10. The training for the second pipe section staff is general subjects to product characteristics, with a score of 3, general subjects to maintenance, with a score of 1, job operation procedures, with a score of 2, emergency drills, with a score of 1, general subjects to control and operation, with a score of 1, general subjects to pipeline corrosion, with a score of 1, and general subjects to pipe material stress, with a score of 1. Then B8 is recorded as 10. The health inspection of the second pipe section is available, so the score of B9 is 2. The maintenance plan of the second pipe section is well implemented, so B 10 The score is 10. Based on The effectiveness of the misoperation protection measures of the second pipe section is calculated to be B = (B1 + B2 + ... + B9 + B 10 ) / 100=0.96.

[0130] In another implementation, the third pipe section has comprehensive hazard identification, and the score of B1 is 6. The third pipe section is inspected daily with attention, and the score of B2 is 5. The third pipe section is protected against mechanical errors by remote control of key operations by computers, with a score of 10, and a locking device, with a score of 5, and the score of B3 is 15. The third pipe section's safety protection system adopts intrinsic safety, with a score of 10, and two or more levels of on-site protection, with a score of 8, and B4 is recorded as 18. The third pipe section's procedures and operating instructions are not controlled, and some process procedures have not been updated in a timely manner, and the score of B5 is 7. The third pipe section's SCADA communication and control are communicated and checked, and the score of B6 is 5. The third pipe section's data and information management is relatively complete, and the score of B7 is 10. The training for employees in the third pipe section is divided into general subjects: product characteristics, with a score of 3, general subjects: maintenance, with a score of 1, job operation procedures, with a score of 2, emergency drills, with a score of 1, general subjects: control and operation, with a score of 1, general subjects: pipeline corrosion, with a score of 1, and general subjects: pipe material stress, with a score of 1. Therefore, B8 is recorded as 10. The health inspection of the third pipe section is yes, so the score of B9 is 2. The implementation of the maintenance plan of the third pipe section is average, and there are some equipment that have not been maintained due to expiration. Therefore, B 10 The score is 5. Based on The effectiveness of the misoperation protection measures of the first pipe section is calculated to be B = (B1 + B2 + ... + B9 + B 10 ) / 100=0.83.

[0131] S4: Obtain a fourth evaluation value based on the impact consequence level of the target pipe section.

[0132] Obtain the impact consequence level of leakage in the pipeline section to be evaluated, and determine the score of the impact consequence level of leakage.

[0133] The consequence level of a leak in the pipeline section to be evaluated is measured by whether the pipeline section is located in a high consequence area. Leakage consequence level scores for different pipeline sections are determined based on whether they are located in high consequence areas or non-high consequence areas.

[0134] The Consequence Level (C) of a leak in the pipeline section under evaluation refers to the potential harm to surrounding personnel and the environment caused by a pipeline leak. This is primarily determined by whether there are densely populated or environmentally sensitive areas within 200 meters of either side of the pipeline. Specifically, this indicator uses the presence of a high-consequence area as a marker to determine the score for the Consequence Level.

[0135] One implementation method, consequence level (C), can use the scores listed in Table 13. The larger the score, the greater the harm.

[0136] Table 13 Consequence level identification score

[0137] Serial number Evaluation indicators Score 1 Level III high consequence area 4 2 Level II high consequence area 3 3 Level Ⅰ high consequence area 2 4 Non-high consequence area 1

[0138] In one implementation, the first pipeline section does not have a high-consequence area, and the score C for the consequences of a leak in the first pipeline section is 1. The second pipeline section has a high-consequence area due to crossing a river, and the score C for the consequences of a leak in the second pipeline section is 1.39. The third pipeline section does not have a high-consequence area, and the score C for the consequences of a leak in the third pipeline section is 1.

[0139] S5. Obtain a comprehensive risk index based on the first evaluation value, the second evaluation value, the third evaluation value, and the fourth evaluation value.

[0140] The comprehensive risk index of misoperation in the target pipe section is determined based on the probability score of misoperation in the pipe section to be evaluated, the probability score of leakage, the effectiveness score of the protective measures and the score of the consequence level of leakage.

[0141] The calculation formula of the comprehensive risk index R includes:

[0142] R = T × L × (1-S) × C;

[0143] Among them, T represents the first evaluation value; L represents the second evaluation value; S represents the third evaluation value; and C represents the fourth evaluation value.

[0144] According to the above formula, the higher the final comprehensive risk index is, the greater the risk of misoperation of the pipeline is, and targeted protection measures need to be improved to reduce the risk.

[0145] In one implementation, the comprehensive risk indexes of misoperation of the first pipe section, the second pipe section, and the third pipe section are calculated according to the formula R=T×L×S×W×C to be 0.0096, 0.035, and 0.0409, respectively. The scores of each indicator and the comprehensive risk index results are shown in Table 14.

[0146] Table 14 Summary of risk assessment data for misoperation of pipeline sections to be evaluated

[0147]

[0148] A higher comprehensive risk index score indicates a greater risk. Based on the above results, the risk ranking of the first, second, and third pipeline sections is: the third pipeline section has a higher risk than the second pipeline section, and the second pipeline section has a higher risk than the first pipeline section. The third pipeline section has a lack of experience in staff development, some process procedures have not been updated in a timely manner, and some equipment has not been maintained due to expiration. Targeted rectification and appropriate protective measures should be implemented. The second pipeline section has an environmentally sensitive high-consequence area, and management of this high-consequence area should be strengthened. All three pipeline sections require further improvement in data management and strengthening of the development and application of information systems.

[0149] In summary, the embodiment of the present invention obtains parameters such as the possibility of oil and gas pipeline misoperation, the possibility of leakage, the effectiveness of protective measures, and the level of leakage consequences. Then, based on the above four parameters, the comprehensive index of oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk is obtained, thereby making the obtained comprehensive index of misoperation risk more accurate, enabling more accurate ranking of oil and gas pipeline misoperation risks, quantifying misoperation indicators, and proposing risk control measures for each type, further reducing the difficulty of management in quantifying risks and reducing the subjectivity of qualitative evaluation.

[0150] Based on the same application concept, an embodiment of the present application also provides an oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment system. The corresponding method of the oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment system can be the oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment method in the aforementioned embodiment, and its principle of solving the problem is similar to that of the method. The oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment system provided in the embodiment of the present application includes: at least one processor; and a memory in communication with the at least one processor; wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, and the instructions are executed by the at least one processor to enable the at least one processor to execute the methods and / or technical solutions of the aforementioned multiple embodiments of the present application.

[0151] Another embodiment of the present application further provides a computer-readable storage medium having computer program instructions stored thereon, which can be executed by a processor to implement the methods and / or technical solutions of any one or more embodiments of the present application.

[0152] Specifically, the present embodiment can adopt any combination of one or more computer-readable media. The computer-readable medium can be a computer-readable signal medium or a computer-readable storage medium. The computer-readable storage medium can be, for example, but not limited to, an electrical, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, device or component, or any combination thereof. More specific examples (non-exhaustive list) of computer-readable storage media include: an electrical connection with one or more wires, a portable computer disk, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or flash memory), an optical fiber, a portable compact disk read-only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination thereof. In this document, a computer-readable storage medium can be any tangible medium containing or storing a program that can be used by or in combination with an instruction execution system, device or device.

[0153] A computer-readable signal medium may include a data signal propagated in baseband or as part of a carrier wave, which carries computer-readable program code. This propagated data signal may take a variety of forms, including, but not limited to, electromagnetic signals, optical signals, or any suitable combination thereof. A computer-readable signal medium may also be any computer-readable medium other than a computer-readable storage medium that can transmit, propagate, or transport a program for use by or in conjunction with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.

[0154] Program code embodied on a computer readable medium may be transmitted using any appropriate medium, including but not limited to wireless, wireline, optical fiber cable, RF, etc., or any suitable combination of the foregoing.

[0155] Computer program code for performing the operations of the present application can be written in one or more programming languages, or a combination thereof, including object-oriented programming languages ​​such as Java, Smalltalk, C++, and conventional procedural programming languages ​​such as "C" or similar programming languages. The program code can be executed entirely on the user's computer, partially on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partially on the user's computer and partially on a remote computer, or entirely on a remote computer or server. In cases involving a remote computer, the remote computer can be connected to the user's computer through any type of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), or can be connected to an external computer (e.g., through the Internet using an Internet service provider).

[0156] The flow chart or block diagram in the accompanying drawings illustrate the possible architecture, functions and operations of the equipment, methods and computer program products according to various embodiments of the present application. In this regard, each box in the flow chart or block diagram can represent a module, program segment or a part of code, and the module, program segment or a part of code include one or more executable instructions for realizing the logical function of the specification. It should also be noted that in some alternative implementations, the functions marked in the box can also occur in a sequence different from that marked in the accompanying drawings. For example, two boxes represented in succession can actually be executed substantially in parallel, and they can sometimes be executed in the opposite order, depending on the functions involved. It should also be noted that each box in the block diagram and / or flow chart, and the combination of the boxes in the block diagram and / or flow chart can be implemented with a dedicated system for hardware that performs the function or operation of the specification, or can be implemented with a combination of dedicated hardware and computer instructions.

[0157] Those skilled in the art will clearly understand that, for the convenience and brevity of description, the specific working processes of the systems, devices and units described above can refer to the corresponding processes in the aforementioned method embodiments and will not be repeated here.

[0158] In the several embodiments provided in this application, it should be understood that the disclosed systems, devices and methods can be implemented in other ways. For example, the device embodiments described above are only schematic. For example, the division of the units is only a logical function division. There may be other division methods in actual implementation. For example, multiple units or page components can be combined or integrated into another system, or some features can be ignored or not executed. Another point is that the mutual coupling or direct coupling or communication connection shown or discussed can be an indirect coupling or communication connection through some interfaces, devices or units, which can be electrical, mechanical or other forms.

[0159] The units described as separate components may or may not be physically separate, and the components shown as units may or may not be physical units, that is, they may be located in one place or distributed across multiple network units. Some or all of these units may be selected to achieve the purpose of this embodiment according to actual needs.

[0160] In addition, the functional units in the various embodiments of the present application may be integrated into a single processing unit, or each unit may exist physically separately, or two or more units may be integrated into a single unit. The aforementioned integrated units may be implemented in the form of hardware or in the form of hardware plus software functional units.

[0161] The above-mentioned integrated unit implemented in the form of a software functional unit can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium. The above-mentioned software functional unit is stored in a storage medium and includes a number of instructions for causing a computer device (which can be a personal computer, server, or network device, etc.) or a processor to execute some steps of the method described in each embodiment of the present application. The aforementioned storage medium includes: a USB flash drive, a mobile hard disk, a read-only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), a magnetic disk or an optical disk, and other media that can store program code.

[0162] Finally, it should be noted that the above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present application, rather than to limit them. Although the present application has been described in detail with reference to the aforementioned embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that they can still modify the technical solutions described in the aforementioned embodiments, or make equivalent replacements for some of the technical features therein. However, these modifications or replacements do not deviate the essence of the corresponding technical solutions from the spirit and scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present application.

[0163] Furthermore, it is clear that the word "comprising" does not exclude other units or steps, and the singular does not exclude the plural. Multiple units or devices recited in a device claim may also be implemented by a single unit or device through software or hardware. Terms such as "first" and "second" are used to indicate names and do not imply any particular order.

Claims

1. A method for assessing the risk of misoperation of an oil and gas pipeline, characterized in that: include: Determine a first scoring result of the target pipe section; the first scoring result is the product of the pipe section risk results corresponding to different sub-conditions in the first preset condition; The sub-conditions include working environment indicators of the target pipe section; Based on a second preset condition, determining a second scoring result; the second preset condition includes an attribute index of the target pipe segment; Obtaining a first evaluation value based on the first scoring result and the second scoring result; The first evaluation value is used to represent an evaluation result of an erroneous operation of the target pipe section; Obtaining a second evaluation value according to a ratio of the operating pressure of the target pipe section to the design pressure; Determining a third evaluation value of the target pipe section; The third evaluation value is the sum of the pipe section risk results corresponding to different sub-conditions in the third preset condition; the sub-conditions include the protection index of the target pipe section; Based on the impact consequence level of the target pipe section, a fourth evaluation value is obtained; Based on the first evaluation value, the second evaluation value, the third evaluation value and the fourth evaluation value, a comprehensive risk index is obtained.

2. The oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment method according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The calculation formula of the comprehensive risk index includes: R=T×L×(1-S)×C Among them, T represents the first evaluation value; L represents the second evaluation value; S represents the third evaluation value; and C represents the fourth evaluation value.

3. The oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment method according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that: The attribute indicators include the types of oil and gas stations on both sides of the target pipe section, the pipeline commissioning year of the target pipe section, and the failure events of the target pipe section.

4. The oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment method according to claim 3 is characterized in that: The closer the age interval of the pipeline commissioning age of the target pipe section is, the greater the second scoring result is.

5. The oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment method according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that: The interval where the ratio of the operating pressure to the design pressure of the target pipe section lies is any one of the first pressure ratio interval, the second pressure ratio interval or the third pressure ratio interval; the minimum value of the first pressure ratio interval is greater than or equal to the maximum value of the second pressure ratio interval; the minimum value of the second pressure ratio interval is greater than or equal to the maximum value of the third pressure ratio interval; Compared with the second pressure ratio interval, when the interval where the ratio of the operating pressure to the design pressure of the target pipe section lies is the first pressure ratio interval, the second evaluation value is greater.

6. The oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment method according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that: The protection indicators include station valve room hazard identification indicators, daily inspection indicators, mechanical failure protection indicators, safety protection system indicators, procedures and operating guidance indicators, communication and control indicators, data and information management indicators, training indicators, health inspection indicators and maintenance plan implementation indicators.

7. The oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment method according to claim 6 is characterized in that: The calculation formula of the third evaluation value includes: Among them, the value of i can be 1-10; B1 represents the station valve room hazard identification index; B2 represents the daily inspection index; B3 represents the mechanical failure protection index; B4 represents the safety protection system index; B5 represents the procedure and operation guidance index; B6 represents the communication and control index; B7 represents the data and information management index; B8 represents the training index; B9 represents the health inspection index; B 10 It is expressed as an indicator of maintenance plan execution.

8. The oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment method according to claim 6 is characterized in that: The pipe section risk result corresponding to the mechanical failure protection index is set with a maximum value; and the pipe section risk result corresponding to the safety protection system index is set with a maximum value.

9. An oil and gas pipeline misoperation risk assessment system, characterized in that: include: at least one processor; a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; The memory stores instructions that can be executed by the at least one processor, and the instructions are executed by the at least one processor so that the at least one processor can execute the method according to any one of claims 1 to 8.

10. A computer readable medium having computer program instructions stored thereon, wherein the computer program instructions can be executed by a processor to implement the method according to any one of claims 1 to 8.

Images