Pigging a lined pipe – response (and a record-keeping caution)

The previous post gathered a number of helpful responses from experienced industry people. But before getting to the technical responses there is an interesting sub-text to this topic, relevant to everyone in the pipeline industry. None of the following is intended to be critical of the current operator, quite the contrary – they have recognised a problem from the past and are working to resolve it.

It seems likely that somewhere in the 30 year history of this pipeline there has been a loss of important documentation (i.e. details of the lining, appropriate procedures for pigging). Like many pipelines it may have been through several ownership/management changes over its life and would not be the only pipeline to have lost records.

I once came across a pipeline for which the new owner’s bean-counters had decided not to incur the storage cost for any documents older than 7 years (the tax office rule). But the as-built documentation was older than that …

Of course the importance of keeping construction and maintenance documentation should be blindingly obvious, until it isn’t and something like this happens.

To the technical nitty-gritty about pigging a lined pipe:

  • There was a general consensus that wire brush pigging a lined pipe is not a good idea (no surprise there).
  • Lining damage may be indicated by epoxy flakes or dust found in debris from past pig runs, if there are relevant records or access to people who were involved at the time.
  • Whether lining damage matters depends on the purpose of the lining, which we don’t know. Lining is most commonly provided to reduce friction factor (increase flow and/or reduce pump/compressor cost). A flow lining which has been badly scratched is probably ineffective.
  • Flow analysis may permit back-calculation of friction factor and hence internal roughness of the pipe; there would be a lot of subtleties in the analysis, it would have to use transient flow modelling (unless the flow is perfectly steady), and may or may not be sufficiently precise to reach a clear conclusion.
  • Finally (and pedantically) to be strictly correct the lining is most unlikely to be FBE (Fusion Bonded Epoxy) – almost certainly liquid-applied epoxy.

On the basis of available information, we can’t say whether or not the existing lining has been damaged, but if the original reasons for lining the pipeline are still relevant and additional pigging runs are now needed, then the use of nylon brushes seems justified.

Pigging a lined pipeline

A question has been submitted to AS2885.info which is outside the experience of the team, so we thought we see if someone else out there is able to help:

A transmission pipeline was previously wire-brush pigged on a few occasions in the last 30 years. However the current operator has recently realised that the line has FBE internal lining.

The question:  Is there any value in using a nylon brush pig for future pig runs? Or is the lining likely to be already so damaged that further wire brushing doesn’t matter?

Principles

One of the difficult things about being an engineer (…besides everything you’ve just thought of…) is being able to recognise your own competency. 

Knowing your own competency is essential, especially in high-risk industries like pipelines and other potentially hazardous industries.  Similarly, knowing the competency of the others around you is essential too.

Not often contemplated is that there are two kinds of competencies:  knowledge, and behavioural competencies.

A person can be very competent in knowledge, but behave terribly: unethically and without principles.  That makes the knowledge, while useful, perhaps less value. On the other hand, you can have an ethical, principled person who keeps making mistakes.  Neither is a good situation.

Pressure

The contents of pipelines are, more often than not, flowing under pressure. A factor in the design and operation of pipelines, is whether it is designed to operate at “high” pressure or “low” pressure.  The lines into our houses operate at a very low pressure.  The cross-country transmission lines flow at a high pressure.

Those of us who work with pipelines are also, often, under pressure.  Sometimes low pressure, and sometimes high pressure.  There are budgets, schedules, compliance, and safety issues to face. 

It’s a pressure we are proud to bear: we are serving society and responding to customer needs. But often we’re faced with difficult situation and scenarios, that test our principles, test our ability to handle the pressure.

Guidance

There’s now a reference resource to help. The Australian Pipeline and Gas Association (APGA), in conjunction with the Future Fuels Cooperative Research Centre (FFCRC), have published a guidance document to help with the scenarios we face. It was put together by a group of industry leaders – many of whom are part of this AS2885.info wiki and blog.

The publication can be found here: Public Safety in the Pipeline Industry: Engineering Practice Guide.

Pipelines / Pipeline Engineers / Pipeliners / Project Engineers working on pipelines

Many years ago, when I had been working as a pipeline engineer for about 10 years, I started asking the question of people around me, “just what is a pipeline engineer?”.

In asking the question, I wanted to understand what was meant when they asked for a pipeline engineer… what were the expectations? 

I wasn’t really sure if I really was one, even if my business card gave me that title. 

Not because I didn’t know what I was doing, but because I was doing so many different tasks and roles on so many (pipeline) projects.

Pipeline engineering isn’t an established engineering discipline, not like the traditional disciplines such as civil or mechanical engineering. 

Pipeline engineering is a combination of all the engineering disciplines, as well as land management, environmental studies, sociology, and economics.  The most ambiguous statement you can make is, “I need a pipeline engineer for this”.  You’ll need to be more specific than that.

And then there are the project engineers who are (sometimes) working on a long-distance, large-diameter pipeline project. It’s not a full time gig as a pipeline engineer, but suddenly you’re a project engineer on a pipeline project, and there’s a need to know all kinds of things about cross-country pipelines … even if your last project was a wind farm, or an offshore platform, or the process piping in a fenced-off industrial plant. Is being a project engineer on a few pipeline projects enough to make you a pipeline engineer? Do you need to “be” a pipeline engineer to work on a pipeline project? What’s the minimum a project engineer on a pipeline project needs to know?

All good questions.

So, at the moment, never mind: welcome to the pipeline engineers here, and the project engineers working on a pipeline project, and the land agents and the environmental managers, and the corrosion specialists and the designers and the operators and cost estimators and the construction engineers. Maybe we’re all just pipeliners in the end.

This blog, and the associated wiki (AS2885.info) are here to make the journey a little easier, especially when it comes to using and interpreting the masterpiece that is AS2885 (laying it on a little thick maybe).

By the way, you might be a pipeliner if you:

  • – know the difference between piping and a pipeline
  • – have a sticker that announces “I heart pipelines”
  • – have stood in a paddock looking around and towards the horizon
  • – know what the dope gang, pig launcher/receiver, scraper station, and joints are
  • – have a picture on your phone of a really steep slope.  Bonus points if there’s a sideboom in the photo too
  • – miss the heady days of the expansion of 2010-2015 (that one’s Australia-specific)
  • – can’t help but notice the “Danger- Pipeline” signs when you’re out driving
  • – know there’s more to pipelines than you’ll ever know

Working with pipelines

Those of us who work with pipelines, pipeline engineer or not, understand that those pipelines go through other people’s backyards, public places, and where most of the population doesn’t know they are there.

The ‘people’ working with pipelines could be engineers, technicians, lawyers, construction workers, administrative staff, and so on. We, the pipeline people, have responsibilities to the public.

Other people’s backyard: that means the public.  The ‘innocent bystander’.

They don’t do a hazard analysis or risk assessment before stepping out their front door to walk the dog.

We have a deep ethical requirement to consider public safety in our work.  The goal every day is that ‘nothing happens’.

Our pipelines are safe and are basically invisible to the public.  And they should stay that way.

Pipelines, PECS and AS2885

Pipelines are buried out of sight and out of mind.  

They crisscross our cities and farmlands and deserts.  They carry energy or water or slurries or other liquids and gases from source to destination. 

Pipelines transporting energy have had a stellar century, with millions of kilometers of pipelines now installed all over the world. While this may be a time of uncertainty, those millions of kilometers still need to be operated safely for the foreseeable future.

Designing, building, or operating a pipeline should be straightforward:  dig a trench and put the pipe in it and let the contents flow, right?  And yet it is much more complex than that.

PECS

The Pipeline Engineering Competency System (PECS) has been developed by industry volunteers, for new and even not-so-new players in the industry. The system describes about 240 competencies that a pipeline engineer might want to have. The details are available on the APGA website.

Here on the AS2885 blog, it is a great opportunity to introduce some of the more important competencies, and also to show the links between the competency and the parts or clauses of AS2885 where the knowledge is used. And even better – tie the knowledge buried in the competencies to stories and experiences and lessons learnt by others.

Stay tuned for the next little while and learn something new, or remind yourself about something you thought you knew…

Oops

A minor but important correction to the post on Use of alternative Standards: Towards the end of the second-last paragraph a vital “not” was left out. The affected sentence should read “Similarly ASME IX is written to meet the requirements of various standards including ASME B31.3 but does not meet all of the requirements of AS 2885.1.”

The omission has now been fixed on the website but this extra post is for those of you who read the blog via email.

Use of alternative Standards

A recent addition to AS885.info answered a question about weld procedure qualification using other Standards. This provides a nice opportunity to address a broader issue that is perhaps under-appreciated.

A general principle is that it is not appropriate to pick and choose from a mix of different Standards covering the same subject. Rather a single Standard must be chosen and used in its entirety. Certainly in the pipeline industry there is a range of Standards available for both pipeline systems as a whole (AS 2885, ASME B31 series, etc) and piping fabrication (AS 2885, AS 4041, ASME B31 series, ASME BPVC, etc).

In practice in Australia the choice of Standard is not usually a problem because AS 2885 is mandated in most States. Nevertheless AS 2885 does permit use of other Standards in some situations, particularly piping fabrication. The overall principle for use of other Standards is governed by Clause 1.6.3 of Part 0, which expresses the intent that the other Standard be used in full (you are familiar with Part 0, aren’t you?).

The reason for using a single Standard in its entirety is is to avoid the possibility of inconsistencies or omissions which might occur if requirements are taken from different Standards.

A lightly edited version of the AS2885.info post is copied below. Even if the specific details are not relevant to you it nicely illustrates the principle of not picking and choosing between Standards.



Question:

Versions of AS 2885.2 prior to 2020 allowed weld procedure qualification of AS 2885.1 pipeline assemblies to alternative standards (such as ASME IX). Is this still allowed? If not, what is the reason?

Answer:

The qualification requirements for pipeline assemblies were tightened in the 2020 version of AS 2885.2. If the pipeline assembly is designed to AS 2885.1 then it must be welded using a procedure qualified to AS 2885.2. If it is designed to an alternative standard such as AS 4041 or ASME 31.3, then it can be welded using a procedure qualified to AS 3992 or ASME IX respectively, as long as the fracture testing requirements are met, material yield strength < 450 MPa and the WPS is approved by a Welding Engineer. The detailed requirements can be found in section 6.4.3.

When standards are written in parts, each of the parts needs to be used in conjunction with the other parts. This is the case with the AS 2885 series. In particular, Part 2 is written specifically considering the requirements of Part 1. ASME B31.3 has different design approaches, material requirements, NDT requirements etc. compared to AS 2885. Similarly ASME IX is written to meet the requirements of various standards including ASME B31.3 but does not meet all of the requirements of AS 2885.1. Therefore it is not appropriate to mix these standards

Previous to the 2020 version of AS 2885.2, qualification to alternative standards was allowed, such as ASME IX. This created many issues such as fracture control, NDT acceptance criteria, NDT methods, qualification ranges etc. and with improper application could result in welded joints that are not fit for purpose.

Welding matters

A new section has been added to AS2885.info to cover questions about welding, with five entries already (scroll down towards the bottom of the home page). Most topics relate to Part 2 but there are already a couple of questions arising from in-service welding and inspection under Part 3.

Other welding questions are welcome.

Learning from the Mistakes of Others

From Ted Metcalfe – a longish read but well worthwhile and thoughtful as always …

We’re not good at sharing stories in the Australian pipeline industry, and in my opinion that is a weakness we should address.

I recently drafted the short article which is now available on AS2885.info, setting out some examples of how awareness of unplanned outcomes has already influenced the continuing improvement of the AS2885 suite of Standards.

My objective with this post is to initiate a conversation in order to identify what level of interest there may be in sharing stories, and maybe even development of an online repository of information about unplanned outcomes in the world-wide pipeline industry with particular focus on lessons learned relevant to Australian pipelines.

Why Share Stories?

The value of articulating lessons learned for the benefit of others has been well-known for many years.  

In his 1998 book “What Went Wrong? Case Histories of Process Plant Disasters” it was Trevor Kletz, (the man who invented the HAZOP process), who set out five very good justifications for sharing stories, paraphrased here as:

  • Moral – If we have information that might prevent an accident, then we have a duty to pass that information on to others who face similar circumstances.
  • Pragmatic – If we tell others what we have learned, they may return the favour by similarly informing us about what they have learned.
  • Economic – In a competitive world, if we tell others about things we have done to prevent further accidents, they may spend as much as we have to protect themselves.
  • Industry Perspective – If one company has a serious accident, the entire industry suffers loss of public esteem, and any new legislation arising will affect the whole industry, driving up costs.
  • Impact – Nothing reads and sticks like an accident report.  Mere cautionary guidance is easily forgotten, but we will remember reading about the consequences of getting it wrong.

Sharing stories is just another form of communication and collaboration, which James Trevelyan emphasises as important for the engineering profession in his book The Making of an Expert Engineer.

For me personally, my interest in sharing stories derives from reading a book many years ago called “Set Phasers on Stun” by Stephen Casey.  It’s a collection of short accounts of many different disasters, all caused in some way by human error or by failures in design of the man-machine interface.  There have been many more similar disasters since the book was written in 1998, so I hope he does an update.

Since then, I have read extensively about failures of complex engineered systems. The human error component contributing to those failures has prompted even more reading about how people think and make decisions.  I have reviewed over fifty failure events overseas and in Australia in pursuing this hobby.  

Yes, I admit to being hooked on “disaster porn”, but I believe that with increased awareness of things that have gone badly wrong, I have learned a lot about what works and what doesn’t work in design and operation of complex engineered systems.

Why are we reluctant to share stories?

We are all aware of stories which probably ought to be shared with others.

How do I identify what stories ought to be told?  When I hear about something that went wrong, I just put myself in the position of those directly involved and ask the question: 

If I were in their shoes, would I do things that way again?” 

If the answers that come to mind are “probably not” or “hell no!”; then the story should be shared so that the lessons get passed on to others.

Until recently in the pipeline industry there has not been widespread support for story-telling as a means of passing on knowledge, but the EPCRC researchers documented some research around story-telling as a learning tool indicating positive benefits from doing so.  

Our Pipeline Operators Group maintains a reasonably complete database of incidents of damage to pipelines in the Australian pipeline industry, and from conversation with those administering that database it is clear that some operators are reluctant to admit “own goals”.  

Similarly, poor outcomes or failures in project execution are embarrassments, too often hidden, and so the lessons are not learned by others.

In previous conversations about this concept, others have often expressed concern about getting the facts exactly correct, and a reluctance to identify the parties involved.  I take the view that it is not necessary to do either in order to pass on the important lessons in an effective manner.

Another concern often expressed by others has been fear of potential legal repercussions.  That’s probably a valid concern.  

Readers are invited to respond to this post with comments, feedback, and maybe a story or two; but given that there is some sensitivity around sharing stories, we need some guidelines.

Some guidelines for posting about this topic

If you are sharing a story about Australian events with unplanned outcomes

  • Provide enough description about what happened to put the event in proper context.
  • Focus on extracting the lessons learned which can help others avoid similar unplanned outcomes.
  • Don’t upset anyone by publicly sharing confidential information.
  • If the story can’t be written in an anonymous way so that the identity of the companies or personnel involved is protected, then it probably should not be posted.

The stories can be anything that generates a lesson that pipeliners ought to be aware of. The reasons for unplanned poor outcomes might include any of the following:

  • Inadequate competence and experience.
  • Inadequate or overly-optimistic planning (both budget and schedule).
  • Failure to adequately implement Front End Loading (FEL) practices.
  • Over-specification or under-specification in procurement of contracts and services.
  • Inadequate consideration of potential outcomes, leading to unexpected consequences.
  • Contracting and commercial pressures.
  • Poor selection and administration of contracting strategies.

I guess the above list says there’s lots of ways we might get things wrong!

Overseas disasters

There is certainly no shortage of examples of stories about unplanned outcomes in the world-wide pipeline industry.  

The USA experience is particularly frightening in this regard.  Just go to Wikipedia and search on “List of pipeline accidents in the United States”.  It goes on for many pages.

We have all heard about the big ones like San Bruno and more recently Boston, and for events like that there’s lots of links available to formal investigation reports of hundreds of pages each.  

Not many people are prepared to wade through hundreds of pages to identify the lessons.

For overseas disasters, what may be more useful for Australian engineers is a brief summary about what happened, why it happened, and how such an unplanned outcome can be prevented.   

If there is genuine interest among readers, some of us might be willing to prepare such summaries for others in Australia to read.

Would you like to see a collation of information on each such disaster which summarises what happened and why, and how the lessons learned are relevant for Australian pipelines?

Let us know by posting a response on the blog.

Australia has stories too

We may not have had any similar “disasters” in Australia (yet), but there have been some unplanned outcomes and sub-optimal projects in our pipeline industry, and not all were directly related to pipeline engineering design.  

Although it can be argued that project management and contractual matters are not issues of technical competence, it is my opinion that a solid understanding of such matters by pipeline engineers is important, and also that project management decisions ought to fully recognise technical advice prepared by engineers.  

Valuable engineering lessons can be learned from study of process plant failures as well.

The triggers for unplanned poor outcomes that I have personally witnessed over many years in Australia include:

  • Quality and System Integrity failures.
  • Contractual disputes arising from reliance upon lawyers instead of on engineering competence.
  • Aggressive cost-cutting.
  • Pushing the envelope with new technology or untried procedures.
  • Coatings and coating defects generally, and the technical and commercial aspects of long-term Field Joint Coating integrity in particular.
  • Circumstances peculiar to the recent CSG-to-LNG Boom in Queensland.
  • Acceptance of residual risk when further mitigation ought to have been applied.
  • Inadequate understanding of the technical challenges during design and planning of Horizontal Directional Drills.   

I guess this list says there’s a lot of ways we have indeed got things wrong.

Benefits to our industry

Every unplanned outcome hurts our industry in terms of supply reliability or cost or reputation or all of these.

Stories usually have a significant engineering knowledge component which affects asset integrity, and sharing such stories for increased awareness can only improve the safety and reliability of our industry.

In my opinion, if only a fraction of the legal expenses incurred in dealing with unplanned outcomes of the past had been spent instead to assist development of better skills and competence in pipeline engineering, we would be a much-improved industry today.

Over to You

Feedback, comments and maybe a story or two to share with other blog readers are welcome.

If you are keen to read some good disaster porn or better understand how people think and make decisions, I have a long list of recommended reading for you.

Conformance webinar – a late report

After the webinar on 4 August this blog reported on it very briefly here, and then Ted Metcalfe wrote the following comprehensive report that was inexcusably mislaid for a while. But better late than never …

In difficult times, we need a safe means of holding important industry conversations, and technical webinars have emerged as one way to remain connected with others in our industry and continue sharing knowledge.  A very good example was the webinar titled “Demonstration of Conformance” held 4 August, hosted by APGA and the AS2885.INFO team for discussion about conforming (or complying) with AS2885.

The webinar was recorded and is well worth watching for those who regularly use the AS2885 suite of Standards.

Selection of this particular webinar topic all started with a simple question made up well over a year ago just to test the correspondence features of the AS2885.INFO website system:

Can you advise on any recommended document formats for demonstration of compliance with AS2885?

Discussion within the AS2885.INFO team before the webinar prompted several more questions:

What does it mean to say that the work completed is in conformance with the Standard? 

How and why can demonstration of conformance be achieved?

How can we be confident that pipeline engineers have indeed understood the intent of the Standard and that the requirements of the Standard had been met?

Who has the qualifications to determine whether or not conformance has been demonstrated, and how do we know they are competent to do so?

The two-hour webinar was introduced by Karen Polglaze of APGA and then facilitated by Susan Jacques of the AS2885.INFO team.  As intended, it was much more of an interactive workshop than a simple technical presentation, and audience participation was strongly encouraged.

On screen was a Panel comprising members of the AS2885.INFO team and several others who had been approached to participate and contribute to the discussions.  The make-up of the Panel comprised representatives of owner/operator companies, the SA technical Regulator, and several experienced independent consultants.

After introductions, Peter Tuft presented some introductory slides which described the various approaches which have been used in the past and highlighted some of the complexities and issues associated with the concept of conformance.

The team clarified that:

  • While conformance demonstration is most often a Part 1 matter, the webinar scope intentionally included all Parts of AS2885, and that
  • The webinar was not intended to result in written recommendation guidelines but simply to increase awareness.

Each of the Panel members expressed their views on the matter based on many years of experience in the industry, and then the Panel remained on screen to field questions during discussion which followed.  The panel was well balanced, and all of their presentations were valid perspectives for consideration. 

Panel members were largely in agreement on most issues. It all went very well, and the entire two hours was filled with spirited discussion.  At least 75 of the original 100 attendees were still online near the end, so attention remained high.  Some challenges from the floor were welcomed and indicated that attendees were listening carefully.  

It was interesting that the concept of competence came up many times in discussion of getting demonstration of conformance right, prompting a further question:  

Who decides whether or not certain requirements of the Standard are both relevant and applicable?

Maybe the Pipeline Engineer Competency System needs a new competency defined here!

Discussion of the Technical Authority concept provided an opportunity to introduce the recently completed Engineering Practice Guide.  Discussion included the vexing issue of balancing cost and schedule imperatives with engineering outcomes.

Maybe the concept of conformance could be included in the next revision of the Engineering Practice Guide.

A recording of the webinar is available here.

If you would like to make further comment after watching the recording, contact the AS2885.INFO team via email at info@as2885.info or leave a reply below.