What problems can arise from loading long-distance pipelines directly?

There are no terminal storage tanks at the end of the long-distance pipeline, and loading takes place directly; without storage tanks for buffering, it seems that there may be instability in the loading process. Additionally, since long-distance pipelines are usually large in diameter, might there be an issue of excessive static electricity generation if they are used directly for loading?

It is likely that a distance of over 20 kilometers will not be feasible. Our facility has a pipeline of 4 kilometers from the tank area to the train loading area, and loading pumps are installed in the tank area to load gasoline and diesel.

1. There is no buffering mechanism; loading occurs intermittently, resulting in unstable operations on the upstream side. 2. If the pipeline leaks, there is no place for pressure relief and liquid drainage. 3. When loading stops, flow is halted on the upstream side, making communication of information difficult. 4. Malfunctions in upstream equipment can affect loading processes on the downstream side

Unstable loading is inevitable; however, since it is loaded directly onto the train, the issue with diameter might be less severe

The problem now is that there are no clear regulations stating that it is not available

All of the above problems exist, and there is no good way to avoid them. But the key point is that using trains for long-distance transportation is not a standard practice; it is merely a backup option. So many operational issues are acceptable.

This post was last edited by dqllcy on 2017-3-22 at 11:31. The lack of a buffering mechanism and intermittent loading result in unstable operations for the upstream side; when loading stops, the flow upstream also stops, and communication of information is difficult. Is it possible to install a self-control chain at the upstream side to monitor the outlet pressure, and to automatically stop the pump once the pressure at the end of loading rises to a certain level?

Since there are no clear regulations stating that it is not available, it also means that there are no clear regulations stating that it is available. As is customary, this method can then be used for loading. To persuade the safety supervision agency, it would be advisable to implement more safety measures, such as emergency shut-off valves and combustible gas alarms.

Such work method standards do not explicitly prohibit it. Possible problems: 1. Loading is a intermittent process, which results in intermittent operation of the pipeline transportation as well; could stopping the flow cause issues such as pipe solidification? 2、Is the same type of oil transported through the pipeline each time? If there is a switch between different grades of oil, it is difficult to avoid oil mixing over 20 km. 3. When loading, measures such as anti-overflow and anti-static interlocks that trigger shutdown are generally employed, which can cause the pipeline to stop transporting fluid suddenly and may lead to water hammer. 4. The design pressure of 20km oil pipelines may be higher than that of pipelines in ordinary loading areas; to enable direct loading, either relief measures must be taken or the design pressure of the pipelines must be increased overall. 5. The flow rate of the oil pipeline may not match that of loading by train, resulting in longer loading times that exceed the railway’s operational time limits. Of course, this direct loading method reduces the number of times the material needs to be transferred into the tank, which is beneficial from the perspective of reducing emissions. Hehe

I think other problems can be avoided through appropriate measures; the biggest issue is the measurement problem. The key is to find ways to address the issues in the measurement process; usually, measurement is carried out using gauges. It is a question whether using flow meters is acceptable.