Real-Time Leak Monitoring and Loss Prevention during Commissioning and Start-Up of Oil and Gas Infrastructure in Saudi Arabia

References

[1] J. Yuan, W. Mao, C. Hu, J. Zheng, D. Zheng, and Y. Yang, “Leak detection and localization techniques in oil and gas pipeline: A bibliometric and systematic review,” Engineering Failure Analysis, vol. 146, Art. no. 107060, 2023. ScienceDirect

[2] N. V. S. Korlapati, F. Khan, Q. Noor, S. Mirza, and S. Vaddiraju, “Review and analysis of pipeline leak detection methods,” Journal of Pipeline Science and Engineering, vol. 2, no. 4, Art. no. 100074, 2022. ScienceDirect

[3] H. Lu, T. Iseley, S. Behbahani, and L. Fu, “Leakage detection techniques for oil and gas pipelines: State-of-the-art,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 98, Art. no. 103249, 2020. ScienceDirect

[4] D. Zaman, M. K. Tiwari, A. K. Gupta, and D. Sen, “A review of leakage detection strategies for pressurised pipeline in steady-state,” Engineering Failure Analysis, vol. 109, Art. no. 104264, 2020. ScienceDirect

[5] R. Doshmanziari, H. Khaloozadeh, and A. Nikoofard, “Gas pipeline leakage detection based on sensor fusion under model-based fault detection framework,” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, vol. 184, Art. no. 106581, 2020. ScienceDirect

[6] A. Malekpour and Y. She, “Real-time leak detection in oil pipelines using an inverse transient analysis model,” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, vol. 70, Art. no. 104411, 2021. ScienceDirect

[7] J. Sekhavati, S. H. Hashemabadi, and M. Soroush, “Computational methods for pipeline leakage detection and localization: A review and comparative study,” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, vol. 77, Art. no. 104771, 2022. ScienceDirect

[8] N. K. Banjara, S. Sasmal, and S. Voggu, “Machine learning supported acoustic emission technique for leakage detection in pipelines,” International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, vol. 188, Art. no. 104243, 2020. ScienceDirect

[9] C. Wang, F. Han, Y. Zhang, and J. Lu, “An SAE-based resampling SVM ensemble learning paradigm for pipeline leakage detection,” Neurocomputing, vol. 403, pp. 237–246, 2020. ScienceDirect

[10] Q. Li, Y. Shi, R. Lin, W. Qiao, and W. Ba, “A novel oil pipeline leakage detection method based on the sparrow search algorithm and CNN,” Measurement, vol. 204, Art. no. 112122, 2022. ScienceDirect

[11] C. Wang, Z. Wang, W. Liu, Y. Shen, and H. Dong, “A novel deep offline-to-online transfer learning framework for pipeline leakage detection with small samples,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 72, pp. 1–13, 2023. IEEE

[12] X. Miao, H. Zhao, and Z. Xiang, “Leakage detection in natural gas pipeline based on unsupervised learning and stress perception,” Process Safety and Environmental Protection, vol. 170, pp. 76–88, 2023. ScienceDirect

[13] J. Liang, L. Ma, S. Liang, H. Zhang, Z. Zuo, and J. Dai, “Data-driven digital twin method for leak detection in natural gas pipelines,” Computers & Electrical Engineering, vol. 110, Art. no. 108833, 2023. ScienceDirect

[14] N. Ullah, Z. Ahmed, and J.-M. Kim, “Pipeline leakage detection using acoustic emission and machine learning algorithms,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 6, Art. no. 3226, 2023. MDPI

[15] A. Rai, Z. Ahmad, M. J. Hasan, and J.-M. Kim, “A novel pipeline leak detection technique based on acoustic emission features and two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 24, Art. no. 8247, 2021. MDPI

[16] W. Yan, W. Liu, H. Bi, C. Jiang, D. Yang, S. Sun, K. Cui, M. Chen, and Y. Sun, “Acoustic detection and localization of gas pipeline leak based on residual connection and one-dimensional separable convolutional neural network,” Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, vol. 45, no. 14, pp. 2637–2647, 2023. SAGE

[17] S. Ahmed, F. Le Mouël, N. Stouls, and G. Lipeme Kouyi, “Development and analysis of a distributed leak detection and localisation system for crude oil pipelines,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 9, Art. no. 4298, 2023. MDPI

[18] Q. Chen, C. Schissel, Y. Kimura, E. McDonald-Buller, and D. T. Allen, “Assessing detection efficiencies for continuous methane emission monitoring systems at oil and gas production sites,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 1788–1796, 2023. ACS

[19] C. Bell, C. Ilonze, A. Duggan, and D. Zimmerle, “Performance of continuous emission monitoring solutions under a single-blind controlled testing protocol,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 57, no. 14, pp. 5794–5805, 2023. ACS

[20] C. Ilonze, E. Emerson, A. Duggan, et al., “Assessing the progress of the performance of continuous monitoring solutions under a single-blind controlled testing protocol,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 58, no. 25, pp. 10941–10955, 2024. ACS

[21] W. S. Daniels, M. Jia, and D. M. Hammerling, “Estimating methane emission durations using continuous monitoring systems,” Environmental Science & Technology Letters, vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 1187–1192, 2024. ACS

[22] D. Zimmerle, T. Vaughn, C. Bell, K. Bennett, P. Deshmukh, and E. Thoma, “Detection limits of optical gas imaging for natural gas leak detection in realistic controlled conditions,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 54, no. 18, pp. 11506–11514, 2020. ACS

[23] D. R. Tyner and M. R. Johnson, “Where the methane is-Insights from novel airborne LiDAR measurements combined with ground survey data,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 55, no. 14, pp. 9773–9783, 2021. ACS

[24] D. H. Cusworth, R. M. Duren, A. K. Thorpe, et al., “Multisatellite imaging of a gas well blowout enables quantification of total methane emissions,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 48, no. 2, Art. no. e2020GL090864, 2021. Wiley

[25] Irakulis-Loitxate, L. Guanter, Y.-N. Liu, et al., “Satellites detect abatable super-emissions in one of the world’s largest methane hotspot regions,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 2143–2152, 2022. ACS

[26] Z. Chen, D. J. Jacob, R. Gautam, M. Omara, R. N. Stavins, R. C. Stowe, et al., “Satellite quantification of methane emissions and oil-gas methane intensities from individual countries in the Middle East and North Africa: implications for climate action,” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, vol. 23, pp. 5945–5961, 2023. Copernicus

[27] L. Shen, D. J. Jacob, R. Gautam, M. Omara, T. R. Scarpelli, A. Lorente, et al., “National quantifications of methane emissions from fuel exploitation using high resolution inversions of satellite observations,” Nature Communications, vol. 14, Art. no. 4948, 2023. Nature

[28] B. K. Vaughen, “Understanding and managing the risk during transient operations,” Process Safety Progress, vol. 39, no. 4, Art. no. e12146, 2020. Wiley

[29] F. Di Vito, “Pre-startup safety review performance and close-out management for a new licensed petrochemical plant,” Chemical Engineering Transactions, vol. 82, pp. 25–30, 2020. Chemical Engineering Transactions

[30] A. Abu Bakar and H. Abdul Aziz, “Development of pre-startup safety review implementation tool for safe operation in process plant,” Process Safety Progress, vol. 43, no. S1, pp. S71–S77, 2024. Wiley

@article{1723548,
      author = {Shahid Iqbal},
      title = {Real-Time Leak Monitoring and Loss Prevention during Commissioning and Start-Up of Oil and Gas Infrastructure in Saudi Arabia},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2026},
      volume = {10},
      number = {3},
      pages = {3460-3472},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1723548.pdf},
      abstract = {Commissioning and start-up are unusually vulnerable phases in oil and gas projects because containment is being proven under changing pressure, temperature, composition, flow regime and control configuration while construction handovers, temporary systems and simultaneous operations may still be active. This review evaluates how real-time leak monitoring can be integrated with loss-prevention controls during hydrocarbon introduction and early operation in Saudi Arabia. An integrative review of peer-reviewed literature published principally between 2020 and 2025 was undertaken across Scopus-indexed and major publisher databases, emphasizing pipeline leak detection, continuous methane monitoring, acoustic and optical sensing, computational pipeline monitoring, digital twins, process safety and pre-start-up safety review. The evidence shows that no single technique offers dependable coverage across commissioning transients. Mass-balance and model-based systems provide continuous process-wide surveillance but can be destabilized by inventory changes and valve sequencing; acoustic, negative-pressure-wave and distributed fiber sensing provide fast local signatures but are installation- and noise-sensitive; optical gas imaging and continuous methane sensors independently confirm atmospheric releases but depend on meteorology, geometry and detection thresholds. The review therefore proposes a layered Saudi commissioning framework that links readiness assurance, dynamic baseline management, multi-sensor confirmation, alarm governance, escalation logic and post-start-up learning. Its central contribution is to treat leak monitoring not as a stand-alone instrument function but as a time-dependent barrier system whose configuration must change as the facility progresses from inert condition to line packing, first hydrocarbons, stabilization and performance testing. The framework supports faster detection, fewer nuisance alarms, disciplined isolation and evidence-based loss prevention without claiming that monitoring can replace mechanical integrity or safe commissioning practice.},
      keywords = {commissioning; start-up; leak detection; loss prevention; oil and gas; methane monitoring; Saudi Arabia; digital twin},
      month = {September},
  }