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