We've wrapped up another great Integrity Management & Compliance Symposium down in Galveston, TX.
Why do we have pressure calculations and how do they relate to In-Line Inspections (ILI)? Let’s start with why. This comes down to three main reasons: PHMSA requirements, sorting through ILI report “noise”, and to estimate response time.
An In-Line Inspection (ILI) is really just a snapshot of the current condition of your pipeline on a specific date. Depending on the technology used and when the pipeline is inspected, different “views” of the pipe’s condition are created. Which means no single ILI will give you the true condition of your pipeline.
This is where run comparisons come into play. Run comparisons help QC new data building confidence in the results, increases the value of each run, and provides data for deeper and more accurate analytics using the comparison results.
There are a handful of options when it comes to doing an ILI run comparison; completing it in-house, outsourcing to an ILI vendor, outsourcing to a service provider, or maybe your organization just doesn’t do it. Trying to decide what is best for your organization? We’ve got your benefits and drawbacks of each.
Integrity Management program requires pipeline operators to consider various elements, and out of those elements, risk assessment plays a crucial role. To achieve actionable risk results, it is vital to know how to validate the results, and we have also found, setting risk tolerance limits better facilitates achieving actionable risk results. So the question is: how do you go about establishing risk tolerance criteria?
New Century Software is officially 23 years old! Even though our blog has 20 yearsto go to catch up to the rest of the company, in honor of our anniversary we took a look back at 23 of our (and your) favorite posts. So whether you’re revisiting a post or reading it for the first time, we hope you enjoy it!
I was speaking with a pipeline operator a while back who had just completed an anomaly dig that cost upwards of 1 million dollars. The reason for the dig was to investigate a metal loss anomaly reported by a recent In-Line Inspection (ILI). The pipeline company’s business rules, in the form of their Integrity Management Program (IMP), dictate that metal loss anomalies meeting certain depth or safe pressure calculations must be dug up and repaired. With that kind of money at stake for a dig, or any dig for that matter, the focus quickly turns to how accurate the ILI vendor made the call. Here we’ll look a little more under the hood to understand the genesis and inherent variability of ILI reported features.
In my previous blog Boxes: The Origin of Your Pipe Listing, I covered some of the basics of where features reported by ILI come from. To recap, the ILI tool does not detect anomalies. It records data which is processed and interpreted by software and human beings. Pipeline features and anomalies are then annotated with boxes which contain attributes describing the feature. Each box becomes a reported item in the resultant pipe tally or report.
In a perfect world, these ILI-generated features will match exactly the features expected on the pipe. Of course, we don’t live in a perfect world and real money is at stake adding to the pressure on ILI vendors and operators to get it right.
Damage Prevention plays an important role in assessing your pipeline risk, safety, and compliance. Part of a successful program is utilizing and integrating One Call data effectively. We've put together a quick 5 question quiz to help you determine how well your organization is executing an effective program.
In our previous post in the series, How to Spot an Expert, we mentioned that there is no “one-size fits all” integrity management program (IMP). In summary, if a consultant suggests that a pipeline operator follow a template or program without having conducted a thorough analysis of your operations, needs, and gaps, they are likely more interested in selling a widget or promoting themselves, than ensuring that you get the best risk assessment for your organization.However, it can be challenging to see through the numerous messages, campaigns, and ever-prevalent online content to (pardon the pun) mitigate the risks of hiring the wrong consultant. So, in our latest installment of “How to Spot an Expert,” we’re focusing on helping you dive deep in your search for expertise when it comes to Pipeline Risk consulting.
Recently, PHMSA released an advisory bulletin outlining how operations of underground storage facilities for natural gas should be reviewed and maintained, as well as how integrity management programs surrounding these facilities should be developed, implemented and updated. This is significant since PHMSA has not regulated this in the past, and the last similar bulletin was posted in 1997, which left regulationof gas storage facilities up to the states.
We’ve pulled together some of the primary bullet points of PHMSA’s bulletin for you to review here in this blog post.