Talk:Pipeline

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Keg11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Much of this page was clearly written by someone whose first language is not English. It needs to be cleaned up. If you don't speak English, contribute to your own language's Wikipedia pages, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.202.224.143 (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The first introductory section needs someone technically review... below sentence is not correct " Natural gas (and similar gaseous fuels) are lightly pressurised into liquids known as Natural Gas Liquids (NGLs)." Lightly pressurized gases are commonly called LPG( Liquefied petroleum gas) this is again converted to gas while pressure is released. While NGL are natural gas liquids, these are liquids present in gas stream and can be separated through refrigeration process, while removing NGL, gas is purified. NGL are stable liquids at normal pressures.

< Above Comments are from, Senior Process Engineer , Jacobs Engineering>

What does BEGO in the sentence "Present industry figures show about 60 percent of propane-butane was produced BEGO from gas fields while the other 40 percent was produced at oil refineries" mean? Clarification needed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.227.15.253 (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

If we can build a pipeline across Rusia for oil?

Can we not irrigate Africa with water? In California dessert has been made some of the most remarkable farmland..

Can anyone point me towards anyone that has looked into the problems with this approach?

Joel

72.141.187.246 (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do we really need a study to do a rough calculation? Aside from the billions needed for the construction, who would be willing to sell that much water? Who would pay to pump it? Could anyone afford to buy it? Why not do a better job of managing the local water resources instead?

Anyway, what has this "pipe-dream" to do with the article?Landroo (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone know how long does it usually take to build a pipeline(by mileage)

I think the "list of pipelines" section should be removed and instead just point to category:pipelines so that it is more complete. I'm going to do that now. --20:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

In this page, oil and natural gas pipelines should be created into different category or into a special group. Because, there are many issues in Oil & Gas Pipelines. In addition, the meaning of "pig" as "pipeline inspection gage" is not sure. Even it is not sure that "pig" is an acronym. Historically, what I have learned is that during the early years of oil and gas production, the pipelines were aboveground. At that time, the operators used the balls to clean the pipeline internal. When they launched it into the pipeline, it started to sound like a pig. And that is the reason why it is called "pig". I am not so sure how solid this statement is and I am still trying to search for confirmation. 10:00, 16 August, 2006 [Harry Lwin]

The oil and gas pipeline section has major quality control issues (composition, etc). How do we flag to be reviewed/fixed? Altonian2020 (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is anyone familiar with the Atasu-Alashankou pipeline? If you are, please contact me on [[User talk:KazakhPol|my talkpage. KazakhPol 20:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

It might be informative to include the historic growth of natural gas pipelines in North America which led to the change in the majority of US southern, midwest and western home heating from coal and oil to natural gas. I don't know the details of gas pipelines, but know that the city I grew up in converted from town gas to natural gas in about 1947. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TGC55 (talk--TGC55 16:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC) • contribs) 16:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC).Reply

The article List of North American natural gas pipelines has some basic listing of the pipeline routes but no history.--TGC55 16:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

One of the best reference books regarding oil and gas pipelines is Oil and Gas Pipelines in NonTechnical Language by T. Miesner and B. Leffler. Released by PennWell Publishing in 2006 it is clear enough for the nontechnical audience but comprehensive enough even experieced pipeliners find the book fascinating. Copies can be ordered from Miesner, LLC

Good idea. Go ahead and add the reference. The book by Mohitpour provides a parallel example. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipeline_transport#Pipelines_as_Targets The following sentence is too confusing, fix it for me please since I can't afford the time for it, now. Thanks. «Leaky tubes can cause mass floods in places that have been affected around the globe that are short of water.» —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.13.49.167 (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that this article should include lists of pipelines and companies. If necessary, it always possible to create separate lists (and we already have some of them). Right now these lists in this article are really messy and there is no clear criteria, which pipelines and companies should be included and which not. In general, to improve the quality of this article, I propose to remove list of pipelines and list of companies.Beagel (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agree Definately, a seperate list page would be better. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Spinned-off pipeline lists (List of oil pipelines and List of natural gas pipelines). Beagel (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I heard that from a chemistry major friend though he wasn't sure himself. Could it be included - and sourced - in the article if it's the case, it seems like important and interesting information. --AaThinker (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Natural gas pipelines are typically compressed gas form, not liquid. They are actually dried prior to being put in the pipeline to prevent liquid accumulation.Danbert8 (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do we have an article on letdown stations where the high pressure gas goes to low pressure gas ? Mion (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

When are pipelines laid overhead? Can someone more say about finding the right way for a pipeline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodolindu (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Pipelines are also used for transportation of raw minerals such as iron ore (if previouslymixed with water). This use is commercially important, but there is not a single mention to it in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.112.64.228 (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

"when in the 90s the brewery moved out of the city, Thor beer replaced the centre of a star with a giant tank." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs302b (talk • contribs) 04:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

The "For oil or natural gas" section would probably read much better if presented as two sub-sections, better describing the technology used for: "Gas" then "Oil" (or the opposite order, although putting Gas first, may make more sense from a historical viewpoint). Doing so should make it easier to add pertinent references to the text as well...--BobC32 (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

This article needs some serious work in this section. The majority of the text is talking about propane and other gases, not pipelines.Danbert8 (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've made some edits to the propane language, but you're right that the article needs much more work. See my comments below. 173.166.110.9 (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I removed the following language for being inaccurate, non-sourced, and generally all kinds of ridiculous:

"Propane is considered the greenest transportation fuel because it does not require refining like gasoline or diesel fuel. Propane is just separated, not refined from methane and butane and other lesser gases at a processing facility which saves energy and time getting the final products to market. Propane mixed with sand, known as propant, is used for WATERLESS fracking, as it does not pollute water tables or soil and is recovered."

Goodness, where to begin?

1. "Greenest" is a weasel word with no concrete definition; however, it's used here to imply carbon dioxide emissions, as the author references the additional energy required to refine other liquid fuels. Published sources from the California Air Resources Board, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and others show the wide range of transportation fuels with lower emissions than propane, on both direct emissions and full life-cycle basis.

2. "...methane and butane and other lesser gases": There's no scientific justification for a claim that these are "lesser gases" than propane. That's certainly not the case based on energy content (per Oak Ridge National Laboratory), nor relative physical structure. Perhaps the author was implying that propane comes from a more respectable family?

3. "used for WATERLESS fracking, as it does not pollute water tables or soil and is recovered.": There's no reason to include this information. It has nothing to do with the article topic (Pipeline Transport), it's not necessary to preempt some discussion of the relative merits of different hydrofracturing methods, and it reads like an advertisement.

This article needs cleanup overall, but I don't currently have time to look over the rest. I'll address the other problems later if I get a chance. 173.166.110.9 (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

"t 6 years, i would estimate that now about 70 percent of propane-butane mixed with other NGL's, is produced from oil and gas fields, with the balance of 30 percent of propane-butane produced from oil refineries when oil is cracked"

Can someone fix this? maybe check the sources that this person is using. I don't think it's a good idea to use "someone's estimate" with no backing up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.230.251.150 (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm thinking of including a section on offshore pipelines. I haven't found any information on that in Wikipedia, but maybe I missed it. Does anyone know? --Lusilier (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.water-technology.net/projects/gmr/

  Triggered by \bwater-technology\.net\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

This article is historically inaccurate and Eurocentric for failing to note that pipeline transport developments were invented by the Chinese, using bamboo pipelines to carry natural gas to salt factories as early as the fourth century BCE; see: http://www.historylines.net/history/chinese/oil_well.html https://books.google.com/books?id=jTD6V3bKixwC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=bamboo+pipeline+chinese+history&source=bl&ots=ncHHYnMrMm&sig=OPjnVE0Ik1hmEdpQEzzXOAQPeVY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QGg5VeOCEpLmoATiw4DgCA&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=bamboo%20pipeline%20chinese%20history&f=false Jamutaq (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Pipeline transport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090604012854/http://www.hydrogenforecast.com:80/ArticleDetails.php?articleID=250 to http://www.hydrogenforecast.com/ArticleDetails.php?articleID=250
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140928113319/http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2012/PAR1201.pdf to http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2012/PAR1201.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121031053108/http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/1976/P76_87_90.pdf to http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/1976/P76_87_90.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121031053056/http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2002/PAR0202.pdf to http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2002/PAR0202.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131101102741/http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2003/PAR0301.pdf to http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2003/PAR0301.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131028062315/http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2009/PAR0901.pdf to http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2009/PAR0901.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140611133921/http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/par1101.pdf to http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/PAR1101.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The article talks about transportation of materials and goods, but there are some ideas about transporting also people --> see Hyperloop. Should this not be mentioned in the article? MontanNito (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

In what form does the ammonia pipeline pictured transport ammonia? And is this true of the U.S. pipeline, too? Ammonia is liquid at pressures only a bit above atmospheric pressure, so it could be pumped as a liquid, but I don't know, and the article doesn't say. JBel (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pipeline transport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210131141/http://www.leightyfoundation.org/files/WHEC16-Lyon/WHEC16-Ref022.pdf to http://www.leightyfoundation.org/files/WHEC16-Lyon/WHEC16-Ref022.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303191048/http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/hpwgw_airprod_remp.pdf to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/hpwgw_airprod_remp.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706092155/http://www.gaswaerme.at/de/pdf/10-1/oberhammer.pdf to http://www.gaswaerme.at/de/pdf/10-1/oberhammer.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928144652/http://www.nve.no/global/energi/analyser/energi%20i%20norge%20folder/energy%20in%20norway%202009%20edition.pdf to http://www.nve.no/global/energi/analyser/energi%20i%20norge%20folder/energy%20in%20norway%202009%20edition.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150117101558/http://watercenter.unl.edu/downloads/2011-Worst-case-Keystone-spills-report.pdf to http://watercenter.unl.edu/downloads/2011-Worst-case-Keystone-spills-report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

It is surprising to see that the oil and gas pipelines are not in separate articles. The other languages have given them an article of their own and these topics are quite rich. I suggest we do the same. Note: The template says to split into one new article, but I entered two article names and it didn't show up. Sociable Song (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I made a new article for the oil pipeline here. But my AfC submission got denied. It is very hard to perform any splitting when no one responds on this talk page. Sociable Song (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Update: As a response to Worldbruce's opposition, I am not using size to justify the split. I am using WP:CONSPLIT. Oil and gas pipelines are a distinct topic from the general pipelines meant for transportation. They have enough notability to stand on their own articles, hence the other languages have it. When people talk about pipelines, they mostly mean oil and gas. And when people want to add information from the recent news on oil and gas pipelines, they need to come to this article. The title "Pipeline transport" is so general that it doesn't feel it is dedicated to oil and gas, so some potential, less involved editors won't even contribute more content about oil and gas pipelines. Yet the oil and gas pipeline topic still strands into many sections in this article, as pointed out by Worldbruce, and these other sections (eg. geopolitics, regulation, hazards, etc.) have overwhelmingly only content for oil and gas pipelines. This means that oil and gas pipelines are the major cause for this article's growth. But does this mean that this article on "pipeline transport" is mainly for oil and gas pipelines? There are some sections dedicated to pipelines transporting other things, though they are underwhelming compared to the content from oil and gas pipelines. If this article is meant for all kinds of pipeline transport, then oil and gas pipeline can't take over the other kinds of pipeline transport. The Draft:Oil pipeline is not complete and it shouldn't have to be that well written before a content splitting can happen. Wikipedia articles are a work in progress after all (WP:work in progress). Finally, favoring large and comprehensive articles is a good policy, but the large and comprehensive articles shouldn't have one major, notable subtopic that is dominating everything else. When that happens, like in this article, the main article's topic feels robbed by the major subtopic and the other subtopics on the main article are less enticing to be written about. Not to mention, to repeat myself again on the argument about ease of contribution, since all oil and gas pipeline queries redirect here, the title "pipeline transport" is not directly on topic enough that some more laid back people will just not contribute content to oil and gas pipelines after a simple search.

• Oppose – No convincing reason for splitting has been articulated. So what if other language versions of Wikipedia have the topics in separate articles? That doesn't mean that's the only correct approach or the best one. Wikipedia favours large, comprehensive articles. Pipeline transport has 5100 words of prose (32500 characters), which is far below what would justify a split because of size. Draft:Oil pipeline is simply the "Oil and natural gas" section split off from pipeline transport. It strands a number of other sections relevant to oil pipelines in the pipeline transport article and doesn't expand on the oil topic. I'd be willing to reconsider if the section were to grow much, much larger. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Support - On the basis that they are different articles in other languages, I will support this endeavour. OSSYULYYZ (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

The article talks about competing claims for the origin of gas/oil pipelines between Vladimir Shukhov and the Branobel company on one hand and the Oil Transport Association on the other. According to https://www.branobelhistory.com/distribution/the-nobel-brothers-revolutionise-russian-oil-management/ I think it is safe to say that Branobel built their first pipeline after the US one as they sent their works manager Alexander Bary to Pennsylvania to study the existing pumps and pipes in operation. The pipes for the pipeline didn't arrive until 1877. This is not to say Vladimir Shukhov didn't invent the concept earlier than either construction, but I see no reference to him on that history site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.98.130 (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

This article is full of details but I couldn't find what I was looking for : what is a typical flow rate for an oil pipeline ? Or rather, the speed the liquid is travelling at ? I hear it is important regarding the buildup of static electricity. What about the temperature ? I know this will depend on the nature of the oil, so there could be a range with some examples. Aesma (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Definitely potential for much more technical detail. If the technical section grows enough, it might split off as another article. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I recall the Alaska Pipeline required installation of heaters to prevent crude oil from cooling so much it would harden into tarry consistency in winter whenever the pressure was too low and transit time allowed for "excessive" cooling Howard from NYC (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Can a knowledgeable person expand the technical section with a discussion of color coding? I'm fairly sure that natural gas pipes in metropolitan Vancouver are steel with a light blue outer coat. A wrapping of epoxy-fiberglass? PVC water mains larger than about 50 mm are a lighter blue. Communications conduits here are orange. Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

following sentence is unclear... possibly missing a word... needs an pipeline expert to confirm...

TYPO = Where a pipeline containing passes under a road or railway, it is usually enclosed in a protective casing.

SUGGEST = Where a pipeline containing ?petrochemicals? passes under a road or railway, it is usually enclosed in a protective casing.

Howard from NYC (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Two red links for gas transmission. Is it a definable concept? If not, then redirect should be done or red links to be unlinked Estopedist1 (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Circumstances where pipeline transport can be used 62.8.73.7 (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply