7/27/2019 Pipeline Fit

1/5

What does it mean to an operating co. when a consultant delivers a verdict such as "pipeline is NOT

fit for purpose"? stop production? abandon the line? or take the verdict with a pinch of salt?!

5 days ago

Like CommentFollow Flag More

Joe Pepper, Tasawwur Tahir and 1 other like this

14 comments

Follow Warren

Warren Brown Just like if your doctor says some part of your body is not "fit for purpose"... what

do you do... If the remediation is simple (excercise more) then you'd probably just do that. If it is

more difficult (get an organ transplant), you'd probably get a second opinion to make sure that is

really what you need to do.

If you don't trust your consultant enough that them saying "Not fit for purpose" can be taken with a

pinch of salt, then you ought not have employed them in the first place...

5 days ago Like1

Follow Vlad

Vlad Romashov I guess it depends on the severity of the rational behind this statement. You need

to go into the actual details and find out what is the main reson for this "not fit" statement, evaluate

the associated risks and make a business decision about using your pipeline based on the risk

assessment. For example, if you have a corrosion defect and you have an FFS that says that the

assessment fails at the design MAOP. However, a pipeline can still be perfectly operational within

say the current [lower than the MAOP] ops pressure but it is definetely not fit for purpose for the

desing MAOP. Without knowing your particular details it's difficult to say more on this subject.

5 days ago Like1

Follow Chris

Chris Williams A prudent operator will review the report and take immediate action where

necessary to protect life, property, and the environment. This presupposes, as Warren stated, that

you have properly vetted your consultant, and actions may range, as Vlad commented, from a minor

pressure reduction, to complete shutdown. As pipeline opertators we are entrusted with safely

operating pressurized assets that are in close proximity to people and also have the possibility of

7/27/2019 Pipeline Fit

2/5

adversely affecting the environment; this responsibility must be taken very seriously and with the

highest level of professionalism.

4 days ago Like1

Follow Bill

Bill Amend It also depends upon who is defining "fit for purpose". Does the consultant mean the

calculations show that it fails a predetermined, objective measurement defined by a regulatory

agency, or does it fail the consultant's own subjective definition of what is too "risky".

4 days ago Like1

Follow Aiman

Aiman Ali Thanks for taking part in the discussion gents. What if the "unfitness" is due to lack of

data, unpiggable line, idle line and/or 'cos the pipeline has exceeded it's design life but may be not

really exhibiting clear signs of deterioration. The easy way out for a consultant is a "not fit"

statement with a long to-do list in order to put the line back in service.

4 days ago Like

Follow Bill

Bill Amend There is a difference between saying "not fit for service" and saying "insufficient data to

conclude the line is fit for service". In the absence of relevant data I would state the latter and

provide a list of the needed data, prioritized by importance and with an explanation of how the

absence of that data impacts the ability to make a firm conclusion regarding fitness.

4 days ago Like

Follow Tim

Tim Poudrier And if you choose your consultants on the basis of lowest bidder, the "easy way" may

end up being the way they use.

Bill's use of the terms "...predetermined objective measurement..." really say what needs saying.

Then the long list is based on reality, not feelings, and completing the list means saving money and

lives.

4 days ago Like

7/27/2019 Pipeline Fit

3/5

Follow Warren

Warren Brown Then it is time to get a new consultant...

Agree with Bill - lack of data, unpiggable, idle line should lead to a conclusions of "insufficient data to

make a determination on fitness for service of line" it should never lead to a "not fit for service"

conclusion.

"exceed design life with no other concerns" should not lead to any consideration other than further

investigation of possible damage mechanisms and associated remaining life. If you get that, then

typically you are dealing with a design consulting firm, rather than a specialist in FFS.

You are highlighting the differences between a good consultant and a run-of-the mill variety with

your question (and perhaps that is the intent).

But also, at some point this becomes your problem irrespective of the consultant involved If you

can't get data easily and can't justify condition some other way, then you will have to figure out how

to get the data required to assess fitness for service. A good consultant should be able to help you,but then so will any number of inspection firms (for free initially) so just because a consultant may

be giving you the run-around doesn't mean you can't approach the problem independently yourself.

4 days ago Like

Follow Dr Afshin Motarjemi

Dr Afshin Motarjemi CEng, SenMWeldI FFS procedures usually have options for such cases of no or

limited data availability although known to be conservative.

A good consultant would be able to select most appropriate data or assumptions in FFS assessments.

Depending on the availability of data the outcome of the FFS needs to be judged. So with limited

data conclusions like pipe in not fit for service needs to be further investigated.

4 days ago Like

Follow Vlad

7/27/2019 Pipeline Fit

4/5

Vlad Romashov It's an interesting discussion we are having here. Having worked for both operators

and consultancies I'd say that I personally can actually understand your consultant. In order to issue

a fitness for service certificate one would need a solid body of evidence i.e. inspection results,

operational history, corrosion management results and so on. In the absence of all these good things

I don't think that many of us would be keen on signing the fitness certificate. I'd personally say

something like "there is not enough evidence to conclude that the pipeline is fir for purpose", as

many already suggested. I wouldn't though say it's not fit because it seems like there is no proof of

this either.

From the operator point of view I'd say it's not an ideal situation to find yourself in i.e. do not have

enough evidence to justify that it is safe to operate the pipeline. I'd say that you can't get to this

state overnight, it definitely takes some substantial time to get there. In many countries nowadays

there is a pretty strict pipeline legislation in place policed by the state authorities. Not being able to

demonstrate to them that a pipeline is fit for purpose might lead to immediate shutdown anyway, so

an operator would not have a privilege of making these decisions.

4 days ago Like

Follow Aiman

Aiman Ali Would you apply the same reasoning with "high risk"? principally the scarce/ uncertain

data used in the FFP is similar to that used for the "semi-quantitative" risk assessment? especially if

your failure rates are commendable. Personally I feel that spending enormous amounts of money to

move the ranking from one red block to another in the matrix just to tick the "ALARP" box is a wee

bit excessive. I would perhaps treated more seriously if I had previous incidents history that supports

the analysis. e.g. covering portions of a pipeline with protective mattresses 'cos we had a 3rd party

incident in the past. BWT, PoFs are derived from codified equations.

2 days ago Like

Follow Joel

Joel Anderson You are falling into a logic fallacy that because of past history, a future negative

event is improbable or controllable. While the chance of failure might be small, the consequences

can be exponentially more than you ever thought possible.

You would be amiss if you didn't ask your consultant to justify their opinion. Where there are gaps,

you make conservative assumptions but with the more assumptions you have to make the greater

the uncertainty. The more uncertainty, the greater the risk (real, not just qualitative). The known is

easy to deal with, it's what you don't know that comes back to bite you (and bite hard).

7/27/2019 Pipeline Fit

5/5

I like gambling analogies so I will conclude with this one.

"All in" works every time except the last one. Are you willing to go "all in" on this?

2 days ago Like

Follow Joe

Joe Galloway I think you should also consider that this is not a usable line. Can not say without all

the Data

1 day ago Like Reply privately Flag as inappropriate

Follow Suresh

Suresh Muniyandi Assuming that the verdict is credible, the Co. should ask next obvious questions:

1. How soon it is likely to fail?

2.Can I postpone the failure incidence (by operating at lower pressure/flow, adding corrosion

inhibitor etc.,) till replacement?

3.Is there any interim solution such as repair or partial replacement (along with close monitoring)?

Based on the answers, one should proceed further.