earth sciences sector towards reducing the space weather impacts on vulnerable infrastructure...
TRANSCRIPT
Earth Sciences Sector
Towards Reducing the Space Weather Impacts Towards Reducing the Space Weather Impacts on Vulnerable Infrastructureon Vulnerable Infrastructure
(ground technology) (ground technology)
L. Trichtchenko, D.H. BotelerL. Trichtchenko, D.H. BotelerGeomagnetic LaboratoryGeomagnetic Laboratory
Natural Resources CanadaNatural Resources Canadapresented bypresented by
R. PirjolaR. PirjolaFMI, FinlandFMI, Finland
OUTLINEOUR CONCERN: GROUND INFRASTRUCTURE
Introduction Cost of the problem
QuestionsWhere the effect might occur? When it will happen?How large it might be?
AnswersClimatologyForecasts Case studies
Power Systems: immediate response to GICMarch 1989 storm: Direct costs Hydro-Quebec > 10 M$PSE&G New Jersey ~ 8M$http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag131.htmPipelines:
Direct effect on pipeline testing 2-5M$/yearhttp://ops.dot.gov/whatsnew/2002/Gas_IMP_reg_eval_DRAFT_062102.htmcumulative response, enhanced corrosionDirect cost of corrosion rapture in one pipeline in North America ~100M$http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Pipeline/Introduction.htm
Directional Drilling, magnetic surveyingDirect response to magnetic variationsAirborne magnetic survey $100 per acre (~ 500 acres/day) http://www.estcp.org/Technology/MM-0031-VFS.cfm
Directional drilling~ $60 to $300 per meter http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section4/4-36.html
INTRODUCTION $$$$$$$$
DMSP Images of aurora on 30 October 2003
UK
North America
Europe
1.Where the effect might occur?Geographic location
?3. When it will happen? BIG QUESTION
Forecasts are mostly qualitative“in the next two-three days something can be expected…”
SOMETIMES FORECASTS ARE BETTER (SEE BELOW FOR OCTOBER 2003),OTHER TIMES ARE FAR FROM BEING GOOD
3. How large it might be? Time, Location, System-dependent
Case 1:Magnetic storm April 2001Range 700 mV-1600mVCanadian pipeline
Case 2:Magnetic storm November 2004Range 4000mV, Australian pipeline
INDUSTRY STANDARDS
Potential of -0.850 V to –1.150 V at the pipe steel/earth interface
Safe range 500 mV
Statistical (climatological) telluric hazard assessment for pipelines in Canada
Need: request from industry and government
StepsPart I geophysical• Statistics of geomagnetic variations• Establishment of activity levels for different locations• Local layered earth models/possible evaluation• Statistics of telluric variations• Telluric activity levels• Production of statistical maps
Part II industry-specific• Modelling the pipeline and corrosion protection system• Assessing the “weak points” of given pipeline
Part III complete assessmentIntegrate pipeline and telluric assessments together
Part I geophysical• Statistics of geomagnetic variations• Establishment of activity levels for different locations• Local layered earth models/possible evaluation• Statistics of telluric variations• Telluric activity levels• Production of statistical maps
Geomagnetic Activity- Hourly Range Index usedAnnual HRX, Y,Z Auroral Zone Annual HRX,Y,Z Sub-Auroral Zone
Activity Levels:Quiet level:chosen 40 nT (95% time in Ottawa)Unsettled: 300nT (95% in Yellowknife)Active: 600 nTStormy: above 600 nT
Assessment of annual geomagnetic activity based on hourly range index
Area of interest: auroral zone (red circle)Only one magnetic observatory: YKC (Yellowknife)
Layered Earth models of area give surface impedances(plot below),
Question: do these models give any difference in statistical evaluation of telluric activity
Combined with geomagnetic data to model telluric activity
Telluric Activity: Hourly Standard Deviation (HSD) and Hourly Maximum Amplitude (HMA) Indices were established
Quiet level chosen 20 mV\km (95% time in Ottawa)Unsettled 140 mV per km (95% in Yellowknife)Active 300 mV per kmStormy above 300 mV per km
Hours of exceedance above certain levels
Statistically Zone 4 and 5 are the same,Thus only two surface models (4,5)did not give significant differences.
Results of this work became part of Canadian Atlas of Hazards (together with landslides, floods, seismic activity)
Geomagnetic activity map
Telluric activity map
Results of this work became part of Canadian Atlas of Hazards (together with landslides, floods, seismic activity)
Zoom-in option, major pipeline and power systems are also shown
Results of this work became part of Canadian Atlas of Hazards (together with landslides, floods, seismic activity)
Part II industry-specific• Modelling the pipeline and corrosion protection system• Assessing the “weak points” of given pipelineProblem:Specifications of pipeline and corrosion protection system
are proprietary information
Generic results are shown.
Y - parallel admittanceZ - series impedanceE – driving electric field
DSTL model of pipeline appliedColor-coded is pipe-to-soil potential difference (PSP)
distribution along the pipeline increased where there is non-uniformity in pipeline electrical conductivity
HIGH PSP
LOW PSP
N
S
“GENERIC” PSP DISTRIBUTION ALONG PIPELINE
Part III complete assessmentIntegrate pipeline and telluric assessments together
Part III complete assessmentIntegrate pipeline and telluric assessments together
Part III complete assessmentIntegrate pipeline and telluric assessments together
CONCLUSIONS
Assessment of space weather hazards can be done in two stages
1. Space weather environment (general, using scientific, open data)
2. Assessment of infrastructure vulnerability (requires specific, proprietary information)
References:
P.Fernberg, L.Trichtchenko, D. Boteler and L. McKee, Telluric hazard assessment for northern pipelines. Paper 07654, NACE International, Houston, 2007 (open publication).
D. Boteler, L. Trichtchenko, P. Fernberg, Report to private company, will be open to general public in 2008