How long have you been working in the pipeline industry for, and in what capacity?
My work with pipelines began in the late 1970s, with my focus being nuclear piping systems.
About the same time I became involved in the development of technology to characterise slow crack growth in non-metallic (“˜various polymeric’) gas distribution pipeline materials, which then expanded to consider cracking and other concerns in steel transmission systems.
Virtually all of my work has been directed at understanding the mechanics and physics of pipeline failure mechanisms, with the goal of developing criteria to assess and manage pipeline system integrity.
In this context I have worked in basic research and development, systemic root-cause and component failure analyses, and technology adaptation and/or development to address the unique aspects of pipeline service and the flow and fracture response of line-pipe steels.
Over the years my role in integrity assessment and management has transitioned from supporting major projects, to planning and leading them, whether in the office or along the right-of-way.
What have been the most important lesson that you’ve learnt during your time in the pipeline industry?
Perhaps the most important lesson over the years is that a strong client-focused team is critical to meeting expectations.
Depending on the nature of the problem and the scope of work, this could run from skilled experimentalists through to theoreticians and numerical modellers.
When dealing with vintage systems, those with decades of experience and knowledge of the unique issues can be essential.
In contrast, when dealing with advanced design modern systems, those that understand the modern steels are critical.
When developing criteria for integrity assessment and management, careful attention to the detail is central to safe, serviceable, efficient systems.
Which pipeline or research projects have been a highlight for your career?
Of the work that has been made public, developing the basis for the Alliance fracture control plan ranks best among the above metrics in regard to solving a practical technology problem, as Alliance was then the first advance design pipeline that fell well outside the bounds of the current knowledge base.
In regard to root-cause and failure analysis in general, evaluation of the root-cause for the lives lost associated with the offshore failure of Pemex’s Usumacinta Platform ranks highest.
It was highly complex in many ways ranging from stakeholders through circumstances.
That complexity was magnified because the work was done under the critical eyes of the Mexican media, a panel of university faculty that covered all of the potential technical and circumstantial factors, the leadership of Pemex, and the Minister of Energy – all of which shared somewhat divergent drivers.
What would you identify as the pipeline industry’s biggest strengths and weaknesses?
From my perspective the historical strength of this industry has been its labour force, as without it there is no industry.
This labour force runs well beyond the practitioners that staff the operator’s offices or serve as consultant to them.
Rather, this labour force includes those supporting the technology development to grow the industry and keep it out of the media.
In general this includes the universities, the R&D laboratories, the supplier’s offices, and as critically those funding this development – within the industry as well as from sources such as the government entities that regulate the industry.
I fear that this industry’s main weakness is its failure to initially recognise and thereafter manage public perception.
At least in the US this has resulted in major issues in getting pipelines permitted – even when it is clear that the new line is needed and will be much safer from a public and environmental perspective.
Self-focused stakeholders argue Not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) because they don’t personally benefit from a pipeline running through their state or county.
Yet the reality is that they would be without all necessities (e.g., light, heat, fuel, water) if it was not for pipelines running through an upstream state or county.
The downside is that once such attitudes become entrenched they are very hard to contain, much less manage.
What does the future hold for the international pipeline sector?
Recognising that there will always be a demand for energy, and that pipelines are one route to its supply, one might argue that the future for international pipelines is bright and expanding.
That being said, depending on the routing, crossing a border can cause sharp changes in stakeholder attitudes which can differ radically within the socio-political strataencountered, and the stability of the government or local tribal views.
I have worked in countries where product theft is rampant, in spite of those that have died in the course of tapping a line.
But I have also seen quite sophisticated hot-taps and quality welds, suggesting an insider or former employee was involved.
It can be hard to balance flow in such cases, which not only effects the bottom line but also could create the impression that a smaller diameter line is now leaking.
Managing integrity under such circumstances poses a challenge.
I have also worked on issues where factions within a country will use well-designed plate charges to blow a pipeline, to affect economic instability for their own gain.
But building and operating a cross-border pipeline between apparently stable first-world countries can open to issues – the Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline between the US and Canada being a prime example.
My experience with KXL suggests it would provide a safer alternative to the older lines in service moving the same product, yet this line has remained stalled in the headlines now for several years.
So stakeholders and NIMBY pose concern for cross-border lines regardless of where they lie, which can constrain the flow of energy in some areas.
Provided this can be managed, the demand for hydrocarbons should maintain a rosy future for such lines.
What would be the key piece of advice you would offer to young pipeliners?
Pipelines appear to be simple in concept, as under elastic conditions the primary stress can be determined from equilibrium principles.
The reality is that their design as well as operation and maintenance can be complicated by a host of factors that affect risk – primarily through the routing and the environment the pipe is buried in.
So, don’t be complacent on the expectation that the problems are simple and the technology is mature.
Failures continue to occur, which flies in the face of this expectation.
Realising that failures can only be avoided by understanding the circumstances that have caused them, there is great value in reading reporting of past failures, for each of the several threats that cause them.
Finally, get involved with the process of failure analysis, as it will open your eyes to what can go wrong and why, and help you be diligent in your day to day activities.
In addition, get out of the office, and into the right-of-way, to better understand the threats and how they might combine to pose a problem.
Why are research bodies so essential for the pipeline industry?
Organisations like PRCI are essential because they facilitate efficient research development, deployment, and information sharing for issues common across the industry.
Collaborative project development with executive as well as peer review insures the outcome has broad acceptance and dissemination, leading to safe, reliable, environmentally sound, and cost-effective pipeline systems.
Joint industry projects also are well suited in this context, but these tend to be more focused in scope as compared to PRCI.
Brian will be presenting at the upcoming 47th annual convention of the APGA, taking place at the Gold Coast Convention and Exhibition Centre from 17-20 October.