I note that your email address includes "shaw". I take it that this is
the yellow jacket company from Canada? Thus your industry would lose
out if GRP were adopted for the transmission of hydrocarbons.
I have not been involved in the use of GRP for transmission of
hydrocarbons. However I am aware that GRP is used for petroleum use in
petrol stations and storage facilities. Also the standards developed
for North Sea Oil Platforms gave rise to UKOOA standards that lead to
ISO 14692. The risk analysis used for offshore production platforms is
far higher than on shore facilities. Certainly a buried pipeline would
have a lower risk profile than aboveground pipe. Yes, You have to do a
risk analysis for any pipe material but that includes corrosion
protection, one of the benefits of GRP.
To imply that engineers that use alternate products than what your
company promotes is insulting. The use of GRP provides a material that
meets the corrosion protection needs of a pipeline and thus doesnt
need cathodic protection, coating or wrapping. It is unlikely to fail
due to external corrosion as steel pipelines have in the past.
I suggest you take your undisclosed biase to another forum.
Geoffrey D Stone
- In PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com, alwynk_m2 <alwynk@...> wrote:
>
> Really? I'm curious what competent company and their insurers would
accept
> this. (except in error).
>
> This kooky balloon has been floated around for many years and
generally goes
> nowhere when properly
>
> engineered or properly thought through.
>
>
>
> Randomn, specialized or some short sighted cost cutting drive maybe.
Think
> about what happens in a fire or any sort of incident.
>
> Why have the steel fire rated (as required by codes) but this stuff
around
> your facility.
>
> How would you meet NFPA?. Where's the life assessment? It's a no
brainer in
> a hydrocarbon facility or serious HC pipeline.
>
>
>
> al
>
> _____
>
> From: PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of blenrayaust
> Sent: February 21, 2008 2:20 PM
> To: PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [PD] ISO 14692 Nonmetalic Pipe Material for Crude Oil
Transmission
> Application
>
>
>
> The adoption of GRP for transmission of hydrocarbons is gaining
> acceptance. Refer to ISO 14692 as a reference standard.
>
> --- In PipingDesign@ <mailto:PipingDesign%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com, sviswan@ wrote:
> >
> > Though the pipeline code B31.4 does not specifically exclude plastic
> > material from the acceptable materials.
> > Despite it's advantage against corrosion and the smoother bore. The
> > likelihood of external damage remains high. It is more used for water
> > transportation than hydrocarbon.
> >
> > A case of reported damage on a plastic crude line.
> > http://www.nrc. <http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/insum2003/pipeline6.html>
> uscg.mil/insum2003/pipeline6.html
> >
> > Sajit
> >
> > "Any of the members in this forum had an experience or heard any
> > Operating Oil Company / Operator who had employed nonmetalic
> > transmission pipe"
> >
> > Melvin
> >
> > Save a tree...please don't print this e-mail unless you really
need to.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Received on Sun Feb 24 16:54:00 2008