pipeline industry education session: encana’s spill … · pipeline industry education session:...
TRANSCRIPT
Pipeline Industry Education
Session: Encana’s Spill
Prevention, Mitigation and
Response Program
Andrea Bullinger, M.Sc., P.Ag
Manager Environmental Compliance
Encana Corporation
Key Messages
• Spill regulations are evolving and industry must evolve
with them
• Overview
– Key regulatory changes
– Encana’s 2013 Spill Practice Review
–Next Steps
Key Regulatory Changes
• BC
– Land Based Spill Preparedness
and Response Policy Intentions
Paper for Consultation (2013)
– BC Inland Oil Spill Response
Plan (2013)
• Alberta
– Bulletin 2012-12
– Alberta Pipeline Safety Review
(2012)
– AER Response to APSR (2013)
– Report 2013-B: Pipeline
Performance in Alberta
Encana’s 2013 Spill Practice Review
• Context
– Transition to liquid plays increases potential impact of spills
– Increasing regulatory focus on spills
– Increasing public concern around spills
– Focus on prevention/mitigation and refine response
• Work with GIS and Facility Integrity (FI)
– Developed risk based training and awareness
– Identify high risk sites and control points
– Develop area specific training/awareness
– Work with BUs to develop mitigations
– Refinement of local spill response resources
Prevention – Facility Integrity
• An annual risk assessment on
all operating pipelines
– Internal Corrosion
– External Corrosion
– Construction Practices
– Cracking
– Weather and Outside Forces
• Integrity Management Program
• Damage Prevention Program
• Aerial RoW surveys and
geotechnical evaluations of
water crossings (2012)
– Approx 50 sites identified for
assessment
GIS Desktop Review
• Developed High Impact Spill Index
• Algorithm based on the following
primary indices:
– Waterbodies
– Stakeholders
– Access
• Significant data challenges:
– AB and BC have different data
classifications/quality
– Data age, may not be relevant
– Verification essential to ensure correct
interpretation
• Total review included 17,507 unique
surface locations
– 11,509 wellsites/facilities
– 5,998 pipeline crossings
Waterbody Index
• Two parameters:
– Classification (waterbody type)
– Distance (euclidean)
Severe High Medium Low
Classification Permanent/
named/ 8th to
10th order
lakes/
creeks/rivers,
icefields, etc.
Aqueducts,
canals,
spillways,
unnamed
permanent/
6th to 7th
order
streams/
wetlands,
reservoirs,
etc.
Dugouts,
lagoons,
quarries,
ephemeral/
4th to 5th
order
lakes/stream/
wetlands,
etc.
Ditch,
ephemeral/
unknown/1st
to 3rd order
lakes/stream/
wetlands,
arbitrary flow,
etc.
Distance <50m 50m - 100m 100m - 200m >200m
Field Verification – Waterbodies
• Total of 447 locations where water type and water
distance identified for field verification
– 15 wellsites and facilities
– 432 pipeline crossings
Stakeholder Index
• Stakeholders include:
– Individual residences
– Cities, towns, hamlets, etc.
– Parks and protected areas
• Parameter is distance:
– Severe = <200m
– High = 200m to 500m
– Medium = 500m to 1000m
– Low = >1000m
Field Verifications – Stakeholder Index
– 309 wellsites/
facilities
– 211 pipeline
crossings
– 4 recreational
areas
– Rest individual
dwellings, towns,
cities, etc.
• Total of 520 locations where proximity to a stakeholder
identified for field verification
Access Index
• Three parameters:
– Distance
– Seasonality
– Type
Severe High Medium Low
Distance na >200m 100m-200m <100m
Seasonality Seasonal/
Unknown
na na All Season
Type Variable/
Unknown
Other Gravel
(Loose/Low
Grade)
Paved
(1◦, 2◦, 3◦)
Field Verification – Access Index
• Total of 567
locations where
distance to and
seasonality/type of
access identified
for field verification
– 243 wellsites and
facilities
– 324 pipeline
crossings
Field Verification
• Too many to field verify
– Eliminated overlapping
rankings
– Added secondary index
(liquid production)
– Aerial survey reviews
– Interviewed Operators
– 40 Flagged for verification
• Field verification standardized
– Trimble Juno
– Standard form in Juno
– Photos of high potential
impact areas
– Photos of potential control
points
Area Specific Training and Awareness
• In development
• Focus:
– Spill response (general)
– Area specific high risk sites
– Area specific spill response
– Spill prevention action items
Area Specific Training
and Awareness
• Goals:
– Engage field staff in SPMR
– Build awareness
• Discuss/plan mitigations
– High potential for impact
sites (site specific plans)
– Control points
– Spill equipment caches
– Staging areas
Next Steps
– Fill data gaps
– Meaningful metrics
– Root cause analysis/ trending
– Spill spot checks
– Spill reduction targets
– Spill prevention/mitigation in
tailgate meetings
– Rewards for execution
excellence
– Site specific SPMR plans
• Finalize/Deliver Site Specific Training
and Awareness (Q2)
• Support mitigations
• Further enhancing awareness and
commitment to spill response: