Risk Classification of Shale Gas Gathering and Transportation Pipelines Running through High Consequence Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The methodological problems of risks of shale gas gathering and transportation is considered. Some classification of risks in the framework of considered is proposed. However the paper does not contain ni masures of risks, ni methods for their evaluation and calculation. Moreover in the paper, there are no any statistical mterial for the risk evaluation. The paper contain only a methodological aspects.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your reply and help. Thanks a lot for the comments and suggestions of our manuscript entitled “Risk Classification of shale Gas Gathering and Transportation Pipelines running through High Consequence Areas”. (ID: Processes- 1700903). We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Besides, we have carefully examined the whole manuscript and corrected grammar mistakes. We provide this letter to explain, point by point, the details of our revisions in the manuscript and our responses to the reviewers’ comments as follows. We hope the revised paper would satisfy you. We would like to express our great appreciation to you for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Point 1: The paper does not contain ni masures of risks, ni methods for their evaluation and calculation. Moreover in the paper, there are no any statistical mterial for the risk evaluation. The paper contain only a methodological aspects.

Response 1: Thanks for your remind. We mainly studied the risk classification methodology of shale gas gathering and transportation pipelines running HCAs. In view of the development staus of gas transmission pipelines in HCAs at home and abroad, we refer to EGIG, domestic and foreign management standards and a large number of event paobability, the pipeline failure factor set is estabilished. IFAHP is used to process the data to realized the risk identification and grade classification of the pipelines. According to the results of pipelines risk identification, conduct consequence simulation of pipeline accident, determine the impact scope of the accident, evaluate the risk, and put forward measures to minimize the risk, our subsequent research will focus on automatic knowledge acquisition and develop a real-time evaluation and decision support system for shale gas gathering and transportation pipeline risk classification.

We tried our best to modify the manuscript. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The review is attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Thank you very much for your reply and help. Thanks a lot for the comments and suggestions of our manuscript entitled “Risk Classification of shale Gas Gathering and Transportation Pipelines running through High Consequence Areas”. (ID: Processes- 1700903). We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Besides, we have carefully examined the whole manuscript and corrected grammar mistakes. We provide this letter to explain, point by point, the details of our revisions in the manuscript and our responses to the reviewers’ comments as follows. We hope the revised paper would satisfy you. We would like to express our great appreciation to you for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Point 1: The recommendations of the article need to be further explained to experts in safety, since the recommendations of the article are not easy to understand. The reviewer believes that addition of an Appendix, where 2 or 3 case studies could be described and solved by the mentioned procedure, would be beneficial.

Response 1: Thanks for your suggestions. According to your suggestion, We added Appendix A in order to explain the normalization in more detail. Zhang Peng et al. propose a multi-hierarchy grey relational analysis method for oil and gas pipelines for the first time, but did not specifically point out HCAs, we cited related paper in the paper.

Futhermore, this method can be applied to other field after reading the relevant literature of other industries. For example, Zhang Mian used this method to evaluate the maintenance support ability of vehicle equipment, and applied this method. It could be described and solved by the mentioned procedure.(reference: Zhang, M., Lv, J. X., Wang, D., Liu, Y. H. Evaluation of vehicle equipment maintenance support capability based on Improved Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. Research and Design. 2015.doi:10. 13219/j. gigyat. 2015. 04. 010)

Point 2: As a single, critical remark, there are many grammar aspects that need to be corrected, to convert the manuscript to a ready-to-publish text.

Response 2: Thanks for your remind. We have carefully corrected the grammatical errors of this paper in revised manuscript according to your suggestions. we rewritten and reorganized the 26 factors into a Table, as is shown in Table 6. The section 3.1 is re-organized and be shorted. Futhermore, we added the process of evaluation factor model into the section 3.2, it may be easier for the readers.

We tried our best to modify the manuscript. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx