Peer Reviewed Papers - Overview

Welcome to the peer-reviewed papers section of Oil and Gas Facilities. Once again, there are five papers for this issue, and while I greatly appreciate the work of our editors, I would like to see these papers generate more discussion amongst our readership. It is hard for me to believe that every reader agrees with everything written in every paper included in this section.

Just as peer review improves the quality of a paper, so does a constructive discussion. So, in that spirit, I encourage all of you to submit discussions. I know our readership has a wealth of diverse opinions on a number of topics, and presenting these different views in an open forum will only add to the value of the papers.

This section begins with two papers that deal with the subject of safety. The first paper examines the optimal distance between explosive, flammable, and toxic hydrocarbon sources and occupied structures. Over the years, several workers have been injured or even killed by flying shards of debris, explosive forces, fire, or exposure to toxic gases when these occupied structures were not located properly in relation to process equipment. This paper presents an approach to positioning occupied structures that minimizes the risk of harm to personnel.

The second paper looks at explosion design for floating facilities, with a special focus on floating-liquefied-natural-gas units. Because these units handle large quantities of flammable gas in a small and congested environment, the explosion risk is typically higher than other offshore floating facilities. The intensity of the resulting blast loads on the unit can be more severe even if the explosion likelihood is low. This paper provides a suitable design philosophy, illustrated with project examples.

In the third paper, the focus is on the substantial execution delays in oil and gas projects. The authors contend that there is a need for more collaborative project-delivery methods to meet the challenges of reduced budget and time constraints, as well as better quality, safety, and reliability standards. Traditional project-delivery methods, they say, cannot meet these demanding requirements. The paper recommends an integrated-project-delivery approach, which the authors contend will greatly reduce execution delays.

The next paper deals with a fundamental topic in our industry, slugging suppression. It describes an experimental study in which a combination of surfactants and gas lift was tested to achieve this goal. Pressure behavior in the flowline/riser system was monitored, and input-gas-, injection-gas-, liquid-, and surfactant-flow rates were measured continuously. The paper analyzes the results and quantifies them through a modified elimination performance index.

The final paper covers the recertification of liquefied-natural-gas tanks that have reached their design life. While inspection, repair, and alteration of atmospheric tanks designed according to API Standard 650 are well-covered in API Standard 653, there is no such standardized approach for cryogenic tanks designed according to API Standard 620 or BS 7777-4:1993. In this paper, the authors provide a benchmark of cryogenic tanks in terms of operation life and type of containment, and offer options to recertify these tanks when they reach their design life.

I enjoyed reading these papers during the selection process, and I hope you will as well. In the event that you would like to share your views on any of these topics, you will find instructions on how to do so at the bottom of this page.

 Gerald Verbeek, Peer-Review Editor,
     Verbeek Management Services

Galen Dino, Audubon Engineering Solutions

Sudhakar Mahajanam, ConocoPhillips