Some emerging countries, such as Brazil, have large remaining natural gas resources but relatively poor infrastructure to monetize it. When most of the natural gas extraction derives from associated gas, this results in high reinjection rates in production fields combined with fuel imports also to deal with an increasingly variable demand. This study test the hypothesis that modeling the natural gas transportation network expansion with Underground gas Storage (UGS) is crucial, as UGS can reduce transportation costs by better fitting natural gas supply and demand. Without UGS chances are that network expansion will be based in oversized pipelines, or pipelines often challenged by peaking demands. Therefore, this study emulated a real natural gas transport network in a thermo-hydraulic model, aiming at diagnosing its bottlenecks mainly caused by demand intermittency, and pointing out infrastructure solutions. Findings indicated the design of UGS associated with new pipelines as a problem-solver for network bottlenecks, under a least-cost approach. This option reduced idleness and lowered gas transmission costs by 60%. In addition, it increased the network operation reliability and created a virtuous cycle, where a better planning reduces the gas tariffs and spur infrastructure expansion by raising the fuel competitiveness.
HutagalungAMHartonoDArentsenM, et al.
The economic implications of natural gas infrastructure investment. Energy Sources, Part B: Econ, Plan, Policy2017;
12: 12: 1080–1087.
2.
RuiZMetzPReynoldsD, et al.
Historical pipeline construction cost analysis. Ijogct2011;
4: 244–263.
3.
RuiZMetzPChenG.An analysis of inaccuracy in pipeline construction cost estimation. Ijogct2012;
5: 29–46.
4.
RuiZPengFLingK, et al.
Investigation into the performance of oil and gas projects. J Natural Gas Sci Eng2017;
38: 12–20.
5.
BehroozHA.Managing demand uncertainty in natural gas transmission networks. J Natural Gas Sci Eng2016;
34: 100–111.
6.
NowrouziAPanahiMGhaffarzadehH, et al. Iran’s gas export portfolio risk analysis based on the development of dependency risk framework. 2019; June
1: 629–640.
7.
ZemiteLKutjunsABodeI, et al.
Risk treatment and system recovery analysis of gas system of gas and electricity network of Latvia. Latvian J Phys Techn Sci2018;
55: 3–14.
8.
BouzarovskiSBradshawMWochnikA.Making territory through infrastructure: the governance of natural gas transit in Europe. Geoforum2015;
64: 217–228.
9.
OdumugboCA.Natural gas utilisation in Nigeria: challenges and opportunities. J Natural Gas Sci Eng2010;
2: 310–316.
10.
ZhaoBConejoAJSioshansiR.Unit commitment under gas-supply uncertainty and gas-price variability. IEEE Trans Power Syst2017;
32: 2394–2405.
11.
HittingerEWhitacreJFAptJ.Compensating for wind variability using co-located natural gas generation and energy storage. Energy Syst2010;
1: 417–439. August 18:
12.
LiuKBieglerLTZhangB, et al.
Dynamic optimization of natural gas pipeline networks with demand and composition uncertainty. Chem Eng Sci 2019 Dec 292020;
215: 115449.
13.
GunesEF.Optimal design of a gas transmission network: a case study of the Turkish natural gas pipeline network system.
USA:
Iowa State University, 2013.
14.
DemirelNÇDemirelTDeveciT, et al.
Location selection for underground natural gas storage using coquet integral. J Natural Gas Sci Eng2017;
45: 368–379.
15.
ChengzaoJYongfengZXiaZ.Prospects of and challenges to natural gas industry development in China. Natural Gas Industry2014;
1: 1–13.
16.
OsičkaJOcelíkP.Natural gas infrastructure and supply patterns in Eastern Europe: trends and policies. Energy Sources, Part B: Econ, Plan, Policy2017;
12: 358–364.
17.
ChatonCCretiAVilleneuveB.Some economics of seasonal gas storage. Energy Policy2008;
36: 4235–4246.
18.
VerzijlberghRADe VriesLJDijkemaGPJ, et al.
Institutional challenges caused by the integration of renewable energy sources in the European electricity sector. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2017;
75: 660–667.
19.
MirandaRSoriaRSchaefferR, et al.
Contributions to the analysis of “integrating large scale wind power into the electricity grid in the northeast of Brazil. Energy2016;
100: 401–415.
20.
OliveiraIASchaefferRSzkloA.The impact of energy storage in power systems: the case of Brazil’s northeastern grid. Energy2017;
122: 50–61.
21.
YuWGongJSongS, et al.
Gas supply reliability analysis of a natural gas pipeline system considering the effects of underground gas storages. Appl Energy2019;
252: 113418.
22.
WangTYanXYangH, et al.
A new shape design method of salt cavern used as underground gas storage. Appl Energy2013;
104: 50–61.
23.
MazareiMDavarpanahAEbadatiA, et al.
The feasibility analysis of underground gas storage during an integration of improved condensate recovery processes 2019. J Petrol Explor Prod Technol2019;
9: 397–408.
24.
EvansDJChadwickRA.Underground gas storage: worldwide experiences and future development in the UK and Europe vol. XVII, no. 1. Second edition. Environ Eng Geosci2011;
XVII: 94–96.
25.
MalakootiRAzinR.The optimization of underground gas storage in a partially depleted gas reservoir. Petrol Sci Technol2011;
29 : 824–836.
26.
QiqiWGuoshengDYanZKangL, et al.
Key technologies for salt-cavern underground gas storage construction and evaluation and their application. Natural Gas Industry B2018;
5: 623–630.
27.
GjerdeIG.Simulations of underground storage of natural gas, Department of Mathematical Sciences, editor.
Oslo:
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2016.
28.
LiJShiXYangC, et al.
Mathematical model of salt cavern leaching for gas storage in high insoluble salt formations. Sci Rep2018;
8: 10.
29.
AdebayoA.Sequential storage and in-situ tracking of gas in geological formations by a systematic and cyclic foam injection – a useful application for mitigating leakage risk during gas injection. J Natural Gas Sci Eng2019;
62: 1–112.
30.
HénaffPLaachirIRussoF.Gas storage valuation and hedging: a quantification of model risk. Ijfs2018;
6: 27.
31.
GangxiongZBinLDewenZ, et al.
Challenges to and proposals for underground gas storage (UGS) business in China. Natural Gas Industry B,
2017; 4: 231– 237.
32.
YuWSongSLiY, et al.
Gas supply reliability assessment of natural gas transmission pipeline. Energy2018;
162: 853–870.
33.
PraksPKopustinskasVMaseraM.Probabilistic modelling of security of supply in gas networks and evaluation of new infrastructure. Reliability Eng Syst Safety2015;
144: 254–264.
34.
LustenbergerPSchumacherFSpadaM, et al.
Assessing the performance of the European natural gas network for selected supply disruption scenarios using open-source information. Energies2019;
12: 4685.
35.
PetrovichBRogersH.European gas grid through the eye of the TIGER: investigating bottlenecks in pipeline flows by modelling history.
Oxford:
The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, 2016.
36.
SzoplikJStelmasińskaP.Analysis of gas network storage capacity for alternative fuels in Poland. Energy2019;
172: 343–353.
37.
Chávez-RodríguezMFDiasLSimoesS, et al.
Modeling the natural gas dynamics in the Southern cone of Latin America. Appl Energy2017;
201: 219–239. Vol.
38.
Ríos-MercadoRZBorraz-SánchezC.Optimization problems in natural gas transportation systems: a state-of-the-art review. Appl Energy2015;
147: 536–555.
39.
MannAWAyalaLF.Intelligent design and modelling of natural gas storage facilities. Int J Model Simul2009;
29: 214–223.
40.
YonganYJuntaoYJingyiL, et al.
Analysis on hydraulic adaptability and pressure drop factors of low-pressure pipe network in coal-bed methane field. Adv Mech Eng2017 ;
9: 168781401769394.
41.
YuanZDengZJiangM, et al.
A modeling and analytical solution for transient flow in natural gas pipelines with extended partial blockage. J Natural Gas Sci Eng2015;
22: 141–149.
42.
SuHZhangJZioE, et al.
An integrated systemic method for supply reliability assessment of natural gas pipeline networks. Appl Energy2018;
209: 489–501.
43.
MohitpourMGolshanHMurrayA.Pipeline design and construction – a practical approach. ASME Press, Two Park Avenue, New York, NY, USA , 2007.
44.
OliveiraAP.Uma metodologia de Monte Carlo para projeto de gasodutos e carbodutos. Rio de Janeiro: Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, 2011.
Capelletto GJ. Rio Grande do Sul Energy Balance 2005–2012: base years 2004–2011. Porto Alegre, RS: ▪, 2012.
53.
WangWWangXLiY, et al.
Study on crystal growth and aggregated microstructure of natural gas hydrate under flow conditions. Energy2020;
213: 118999.
54.
LiuWHuJLiX, et al.
Assessment of hydrate blockage risk in long-distance natural gas transmission pipelines. J Natural Gas Sci Eng2018;
60: 256–270.
55.
Farzaneh-GordMRahbariHRBajelanM, et al.
Investigation of hydrate formation in natural gas flow through underground transmission pipeline. J Natural Gas Sci Eng2013;
15: 27–37.
56.
FaragHAAEzzatMMAmerH, et al.
Natural gas dehydration by desiccant materials. Alexandria Eng J2011 ;
50: 431–439.
57.
BurgassRChapoyAFilhoVOC.Development of a new method for measurement of the water dew/frost point of gas. Fluid Phase Equilibria2021;
530: 112873.
58.
AvilaSBlancoSTVelascoI, et al.
Thermodynamic properties of synthetic natural gases. 1. Dew-point curves of synthetic natural gases and their mixtures with water and methanol. Measurement and correlation. Ind Eng Chem Res2002 ;
41: 3714–3721.
59.
ShagapovVSUrazovRRMusakaevNG.Dynamics of formation and dissociation of gas hydrates in pipelines at the various modes of gas transportation. Heat Mass Transfer2012;
48: 1589–1600.
PenereiroJCMeschiattiMC.Tendências em séries anuais de precipitação e temperaturas no brasil – (trends in the annual rainfall and temperatures series in brazil) only abstract in English. Eng Sanit Ambient2018;
23: 319–331.
62.
ANP. Anuário Estatítstico 2020. Rio de Janeiro: 2020.
63.
ANP. Brazil rounds – 10th round. Rio de Janeiro: Author, 2008.
64.
EIA. Advanced resources information. Technically recoverable shale oil and shale gas resources: an assessment of 137 shale formations in 41 countries outside the United States. Washington DC: Author, 2013.
Paraná. State Act 11.580, November, 14th, 1996, www.legislacao.pr.gov.b (1996, accessed 5 April 2015).
71.
MME. Plano Decenal de Expansão da Malha de Transporte Dutoviário do País – PEMAT, www.mme.gov.br (2014, accessed 1 May 2018).
72.
Brasil. Program for Growth Acceleration 2 (PAC2) – Oil and Natural Gas, www.pac.gov.br (2015, I July 2015).
73.
Brasil. Act 11.909, March 4th, 2009. 2009.
74.
IPLOCA. Onshore pipelines – the road to success. Geneva, Switzerland: International Pipeline and Offshore Contractors Association, 2009.
75.
D'OliveiraCelso A., França, Ardson L.S. . Gascav: focus on performance to meet the deadline. In: Rio Pipeline Congress, 2009. IBP1403_09, Rio de Janeiro: IBP.
76.
Firjan. Quanto Custa o Gás para a Indústria no Brasil? Estudos para o Desenvolvimento do Rio de Janeiro, vol 9, 1-33; www.firjan.com.br (2011, accessed 1 July 2015).
77.
GoraiebCLIyomassaWSAppiCJ.Estocagem subterrânea de gás natural – tecnologia Para suporte ao crescimento do setor de gás natural no brasil.
São Paulo:
Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnológicas, 2005.
78.
LinBXuB.How to promote the growth of new energy industry at different stages? Energy Policy2018;
118: 390–403.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
