Questions regarding the venting pipelines at natural gas stations
Thread Content
Hello everyone. I used to work in factories, where the vent pipes in such facilities are usually located on the ground. Moreover, these vent pipes are separated according to high and low pressure levels, each leading toward a separate liquid separation tank for combustion. Recently, I worked on a natural gas facility project, where the owner suggested burying the vent pipelines. The reason was that the gas involved was mainly dry gas, with only a portion being gas containing water; since the gas was vented at a fast rate, it didn’t matter if there were low points underground. But I think it’s better to stick with the previous method. Please give some suggestions. Please give some feedback.
This post was last edited by ancientjin on 2016-7-25 at 20:56. Moreover, since the pipelines are buried underground, they are difficult to maintain; even with excellent anti-corrosion measures, there is still a high likelihood of damage occurring. The ground layout requires pipe racks along with insulation, which increases the cost. @chm5277 @colinzh @Fish_in_the_desert @ckwcba @waaabc @jackzwt @boyirensheng @Sammy_Wang @Two_People_Listening_to_the_See @Manchester_Utd_Empire @boyirensheng
Yeah, it’s actually a friend! I agree with you; buried pipelines are more difficult to install, and the regulations also do not permit their use. Even a small amount adds up over time
The vent pipeline is in poor condition due to severe wear; it carries flammable gases as well. It’s better to use a pipe rack for it – it’s safer
I’ve never seen it installed on the ground; according to current safety and environmental regulations, it must be mounted on a pipe rack to enable monitoring and other functions
Station areas generally have a lot of cold venting, and after being buried, the final vent outlet still needs to be led to a certain height above the ground.
LNG? I really don’t know~ There’s now an LNG version in the petrochemical sector. . .
This post was last edited by ancientjin on 2016-7-26 08:16. I have reviewed all the relevant standards, but I couldn’t find any that state that it is absolutely forbidden to bury it underground. The standard states that the slope should preferably face the torch system; if there are unavoidable low points, a liquid separation device should be installed. Some owners also said that even if there is a small amount of liquid entrained, the fast venting speed would be sufficient to blow it away. I just think that design shouldn’t be taken for granted; it needs to be as safe and reasonable as possible. HAZ analysis does not cover this; it mainly focuses on arrangements and processes. I keep giving suggestions now, but it seems there’s nothing I can do since the owners don’t listen to me.
I’ve checked some literature, which states that in similar cases, the pipes suffered corrosion damage after only 9 years of being buried. The biggest issue is also the problem of fluid accumulation; if they all assume that having a large low point buried underground has little impact. But they still added a liquid separation tank; since they thought there was very little liquid, why add another component for the liquid? It’s a bit contradictory.
Well, I saw that at the station there is indeed a method of venting separately, and another method involving using a torch. Both of these pipelines carry wet natural gas; the flow rate is acceptable at the beginning of the venting process, but it slows down toward the end, and liquid then accumulates in the pipelines. This is probably because my factory produced too much of it; it should be treated differently, I think
Well, sure. These are the pipelines at the natural gas station.